of  tlje  Atonement* 


DELIVERED  AUG.  17,  1823,  IN  THE -CHAPEL 


OF  THE 


AN  DOVER. 


BY  JAMES  MURDOCK,  D.  D. 

Brown  Professor  of  Sac.  Hhet.  and  Eccles.  Hist,  in  the  Seminary. 


PUBLISHED  BY  THE  STUDENTS  OF  THE  INSTITUTION. 


ANDOVER  : 

FLAGG  AND  GOULD,  PRINTERS. 

1823. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 

THIS  discourse  was  delivered  to  an  audience  composed  chiefly 
of  theological  students,  and  was  designed  to  aid  them  in  forming  their 
opinions  on  the  important  subject  discussed.  For  their  benefit,  as 
well  as  at  their  desire  and  expense,  it  is  now  made  public.  In  pre- 
paring it  for  the  press,  the  writer  at  first  intended  to  have  assigned 
to  the  appendix  a  greater  portion  of  the  discussion,  and  to  have  re- 
tained at  least  all  the  practical  reflections  embodied  in  the  original 
sermon.  But  he  soon  found  that  this  course  would  swell  the  publi- 
cation too  much,  and  would  cost  him  more  time  than  could  be  spar- 
ed from  his  other  duties.  He  therefore  changed  his  plan,  omitted 
much  that  was  merely  practical  and  enlarged  the  discussion  in  the 
body  of  the  sermon,  and  subjoined  only  a  few  articles  by  way  of 
appendix.  As  it  has  thus  assumed  very  much  the  character  of  a 
theological  tract,  some  references  and  quotations  have  been  annex- 
ed, which  can  be  of  no  use  to  the  public  at  large  ;  but  which,  it  is 
hoped,  will  be  of  value  to  those  for  whom  they  were  intended. 


SERMON. 


ROM.  iii.  25,  26. 

"  WHOM  GOD  HATH  SET  FORTH  TO  BE  A  PROPITIATION,  THROUGH  FAITH  IN  HIS 
BLOOD,  TO  DECLARE  HIS  RIGHTEOUSNESS  FOR  THE  REMISSION  OF  SINS  THAT 
ARE  PAST,  THROUGH  THE  FORBEARANCE  OF  GOD ;  TO  DECLARE,  I  SAY,  AT 
THIS  TIME  HIS  RIGHTEOUSNESS  :  THAT  HE  MIGHT  BE  JUST,  AND  THE  JUSTI- 
FIER  OF  HIM  WHICH  BELIEVETH  IN  JESUS." 

THE  great  question,  the  question  of  deepest  inter- 
est— to  us,  and  to  all  men, — is,  on  what  conditions  will 
God  be  propitious  to  us  ?  In  other  words,  how  may  we 
obtain  forgiveness  of  our  sins  and  the  everlasting  favour 
of  God?  What  will  he  accept  as  an  atonement  for  our 
transgressions  ?  What  can  restore  that  harmony  be- 
tween him  and  us,  which  has  been  interrupted  by  fhe 
apostacy  of  our  first  parents  and  our  own  criminal 
deeds,  and  which  must  be  restored,  or  we  must  be  for- 
ever miserable  ?— This  is  a  question  which  presses 
heavily  on  the  soul  of  every  man,  when  he  looks  forward 
with  anxiety  to  the  grave  and  to  the  world  that  lies  be- 
yond it.  And  to  answer  this  question,  is  the  grand  pro* 
biem  in  the  religion  of  every  age  and  country. — From 
the  nature  of  the  question,  it  is  obvious  that  reason  alone 
2 


6 

V 

can  never  answer  it.  An  offended  God  will  make  his 
own  terms :  and  who  can  tell  what  they  will  be,  till  he 
reveals  them  ?* — To  give  us  information  on  this  subject, 
and  information  on  which  we  may  rely,  is  the  chief  ob- 
ject of  the  Christian  revelation.  As  it  contains  the  most 
satisfactory  declarations,  and  especially  as  it  assures  us 
that  God  will  bestow  free  pardon  and  everlasting  bliss 
on  all  who  repent  and  believe  in  Jesus  Christ ;  this  rev- 
elation is  justly  denominated  the  Gospel,  the  glad  tidings 
from  heaven.  Yet,  full  and  explicit  as  the  scriptures 
are  on  this  subject,  they  do  not  enable  us  to  understand 
it  perfectly.  Many  questions  may  be  asked  which  it 
would  be  difficult,  and  some  which  it  would  be  impossi- 
ble to  answer.  Who,  for  instance,  can  comprehend  the 
mysterious  union  of  natures  in  the  person  of  the  Media- 

vtor?  Who  can  tell  all  the  bearings  and  influences  of 
his  obedience  and  death?  Who  can  be  certain  that  he 
knows  all  the  obstacles  which  were  to  be  removed,  be- 
fore a  free  pardon  could  be  consistently  extended  to  sin- 
ful men  ?  Or  who  will  presume  that  he  understands  all 
the  effects  of  the  work  of  redemption,  in  the  great 
system  of  the  universe  ?  It  is  easy  to  see,  that  a 
finite  human  mind  can  but  imperfectly  comprehend  tty£ 
designs  and  procedure  of  God  in  the  moral,  as  well  as 
in  the  natural  world.  Still,  information  sufficient  to  an- 
swer all  practical  purposes,  we  may  presume,  is  given 

Vus.     For  the  attainment  of  salvation,  it  maybe  sufficient 

*  See  BrettschneideSs  Handbuch  der  Dogmatik.  2ter  Theil.  §  158. 
S.  272  ff.  and  M.  F.  G,  Siiskind  iiber  die  Moglichkeit  der  Strafen— Auf- 
hebung  oder  der  Siinden — Vergebung,  nacb  Principien  der  practischen 
Vermmft,  in  Flatfs  Magazin.  Her  Stuck.  S.  1—67.  Tubing.  1796,  and 
Butler's  Analogy,  Pt.  II.  chap.  3,  4,  5,  particularly  chap.  5,  pp.  281— 
287.  ed.  Boston,  1809. 


that  we  know  and  believe  firmly  the  simple  fact,  that 
there  is  forgiveness  with  God,  for  the  penitent  believer, 
on  account  of  something  which  Christ  has  done  or  suffer- 
ed. Not  much  beyond  this,  have  the  knowledge  and  the 
faith  of  the  great  body  of  Christians,  in  every  age,  ex- 
tended. Yet  on  a  subject  of  so  much  interest, — a 
subject  into  which  angels  look  with  eager  curiosity,  and 
which  is  to  be  the  theme  of  the  redeemed  to  eterni- 
ty,— more  knowledge  certainly  is  desirable.  It  may 
contribute  to  the  establishment  of  our  faith,  to  the  cor- 
rection of  our  sentiments  and  the  enlargement  of  our 
knowledge,  on  other  points  in  theology  ;  and  may  afford 
us  interesting  subjects  for  devout  meditation.  No  work 
of  God  equally  displays  the  depth  of  the  divine  wisdom 
and  goodness ;  none  seems  more  worthy  to  engage  all 
the  powers  of  the  human  mind. — On  few  points  in  the- 
ology, has  the  Christian  church  made  greater  progress  in 
knowledge.  From  the  days  of  the  earliest  fathers  to  Mar- 
tin Luther,  there  was  a  gradual  though  not  very  rapid 
advance.  The  reformers  cast  much  light  on  the  subject. 
From  that  time,  the  adversaries  of  the  doctrines  of  grace 
have,  with  eagle  eyes,  detected  errors  and  mistakes  in 
the  writings  of  the  reformers  and  their  successors.  With- 
in the  last  fifty  years,  the  subject  has  undergone  a  more 
full  discussion  than  ever;  and  the  advance  in  knowl- 
edge has,  I  conceive,  been  answerable  to  the  efforts 
made.  One  fact  is  noticeable,  and  demands  our  grati- 
tude to  the  Author  of  all  light  c  the  believers  in  gratui- 
tous justification,  both  in  Europe  and  America,  seem  to 
be  gradually  coming  to  nearly  the  same  conclusions.* 

With  a  view  to  exhibit  the  results,  to  which  my  own 
mind  has  been  led,  and  especially  in   regard  to  the  na- 
*  See  Appendix,  A. 


a 

ture  and  the  proximate  effects  of  the  atonement,  I  shall 
now  direct  your  attention  to  the  passage  of  scripture 
prefixed  to  this  discourse. 

In  this  text,  Paul  declares,  explicitly,  what  was  the 
immediate  object  of  Christ's  atoning  sacrifice  ;  —  that  is, 
what  effect  it  had  in  the  economy  of  redemption,  or  how 
it  laid  a  proper  foundation  for  the  pardon  and  the  sal- 
ration  of  sinful  men.—  It  was  the  immediate  object  of 
this  sacrifice,  to  declare  the  righteousness  of  God  :  in 
other  words,  to  display  and  vindicate  the  perfect  holi- 
ness and  uprightness  of  his  character  as  a  moral  gover- 
nor. This  display  being  made,  he  can  with  propriety 
forgive  all  that  believe  in  Jesus.  —  As  this  sentiment  is 
the  foundation  of  my  whole  discourse,  I  shall  take  some 
pains  to  shew  that  it  is  really  contained  in  the  text. 

The  Apostle  is  here  treating,  professedly,  on  the  doc- 
trine of  justification  by  grace  through  the  atonement 
made  by  Jesus  Christ.  And  he  uses,  in  the  text,  no  fig- 
urative terms,  and  no  comparisons  or  allusions,  which 
might  mislead  us.  He  appears  to  aim  at  stating  the 
simple  truth,  and  in  the  most  direct  and  appropriate 
terms.  The  plain,  direct  meaning  of  his  words,  there- 
fore, taking  them  throughout  in  their  most  obvious  sense, 
is  their  true  meaning.  Keeping  these  things  in  view,  let 
us  now  enter  the  sanctuary  of  this  text,  and  survey  the 
objects  it  contains.*  "  God  hath  set  forth" 


*  For  the  sake  of  those  who  may  wish  to  see  the  words  of  the 
original  in  their  connexion,  the  whole  text  is  here  given.  Verse  25. 
cOv  nyof&fTO  o  ftfog  IJiaoTfjQiov  dia.  rr)<s  niOTtcog  tv  TO)  UVTOV 
xi,  ft?  ivda^tv  Tfj?  dixcuoovvyg  CIVTOV,  d(,a  Tt^v  TicxQfGiv  TWV 

tv  TT(  avo^y  TOV  &eov  verse  26.  nyog  ev- 
UVTOV  tv  TCO  vvv  xatpo),  us  TO  tivou,  O.VTOV 
,  xai  dwaiovvTu  TOV  ex  TUOTfwg  /?;<JOf. 


9 

hath  exposed  to  view,  as  an  object  which  is  brought 
forth  and  exhibited  to  public  inspection.  "  God  hath 
set  forth  his  Son  a  propitiation" — lAaaryptov.,  a  propitia- 
tory sacrifice  or  victim  ; — not  a  mercy-seat  or  covering  for 
the  ark,  as  some  have  understood  it.* — "  Through  faith 
in  his  blood :"  that  is,  the  benefits  of  which  sacrifice,  men 
obtain  by  trusting  in  it. — God  hath  done  this  "/o  declare 
his  righteousness"  This  propitiatory  sacrifice  was  in- 
tended,— fig  evdfit-w,  or  as  afterwards  expressed,  npog 
wdet£iVi — for  a  display,  exhibition  or  manifestation  :  and 
the  thing  to  be  displayed  or  exhibited,  was  the  righteous- 
ness of  God, — TT^g  dixaioovvrjg  avrov, — that  is,  the  recti- 
tude of  his  views  and  proceedings  as  the  moral  governor 
of  the  universe.t 

^  Some  suppose  the  righteousness  of  God  to  denote 
here,  not  one  of  the  divine  attributes,  but  that  righteous- 
ness which  God  accepts  and  makes  the  ground  of  a  sin- 
ner's justification  •  or  what  had  just  before  been  denom- 
inated "  the  righteousness  of  God  without  the  law,"  and 
"  the  righteousness  of  God  which  is  by  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ."J— But  this  would  be  supposing  the  righteous- 
ness of  God  to  be  nothing  different  from  the  propitia- 
tion itself ;  between  which  two  things,  the  text  makes 
the  same  distinction  as  between  the  means  employed,  and  ' 

*  See  Wolfii  Curae  Philol.  in  loc.  Magee  on  Aton.  and  Sacr.  p.  130. 
Novum  Test.  Gr.  a  Koppe;  and  Rosenmuller  in  locum. 

t  By  the  words  rectitude  and  righteousness,  here  and  throughout  the  dis- 
course, I  intend  what  is  called  general  or  mixed  justice ;  which  is 
to  be  carefully  distinguished  from  particular  or  simple  justice.  See  a 
full  account  of  the  distinction,  in  the  Appendix  B. 

J  See  Whitby,  in  loc.  and  Discourse  on  Imputation,  in  his  Com.  on 
N.  T.  vol.  II,  p.  228. 


10 

the  effect  produced.  The  propitiation  was  intended  for  an 
exhibition,  or,  it  was  an  exhibition,  of  the  righteousness  of 
God.  That  which  is  employed  solely  as  the  means  of 
exhibiting  something  else  which  we  wish  to  display,  cannot 
be  the  very  thing  displayed.  To  bear  the  meaning  con- 
tended for,  the  text  should  read  :  Whom  God  hath  set 
forth  as  a  propitiation,  that  is,  hath  caused  to  become  his 
righteousness. 

N  Again ;  some  contend  that  dixaioawr)  should  here  be 
rendered  benignity,  kindness  or  compassion.  And  the 
word  dtxaiog,  translated  just,  in  the  next  verse,  they 
would  have  signify  merciful,  gracious,  compassionate* — 
That  a  very  few  passages  are  to  be  found,  in  which  the 
sense  would  be  preserved,  and  perhaps  be  expressed 
more  definitely,  by  rendering  these  Greek  words  in  this 
manner,  I  will  admit.  It  is  no  uncommon  thing  for  words 
of  a  general  import,  as  these  are,  to  be  used  occasional- 
ly instead  of  more  limited  terms.  But  this  occasional 
usage  of  words  in  an  improper  and  peculiar  sense,  does 
not  prevent  them  from  having  what  may  be  called  their 
ordinary  and  their  appropriate  meaning;  that  is,  a  meaning 
which  is  always  to  be  given  them,  when  no  reasons 
appear  to  forbid  it.  Precisely  such  is  the  case  before 
v«s.  These  Greek  words,  ordinarily  and  appropriately, 
express  the  same  ideas  as  our  English  words  righteous- 
ness and  righteous-  and  no  philological  reason  for- 
bids their  having  this  meaning  here.  Those  who 
contend  for  rendering  them  compassion  and  compassion- 
ate, offer  no  reasons  drawn  from  the  connexion,  the 

*  See  Hammond,  Rosenmiiller  and  Koppe,  in  loc.  and  Schlensneri  Lex. 
N.  T.  Evfoi&g,  no.  1.  and  AIY.UWS,  no.  4. 


11 

course  of  thought,  or  parallel  passages.  They  merely  ad- 
duce proof  that  there  are  a  few  passages,  in  which  the 
words  seem  to  have  these  peculiar  meanings  ;  and  then 
add,  that  they  would  give  a  sense  more  agreeable  to  them,7 
if  so  rendered  here.  Such  arguments  need  no  con- 
futation.— But  I  have  other  reasons  for  rejecting  this 
interpretation.  Is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  the  Son  of 
God  became  incarnate,  and  suffered  and  died  on  the 
cross,  merely  to  evince  that  God  is  a  being  of  compas- 
sion?— Was  there  no  other  way,  in  which  our  heavenly 
father  could  convince  us  that  he  is  kind  and  gracious  ? 
Besides,  of  what  use  could  it  be,  for  him  to  demonstrate 
this  attribute  in  such  a  way,  when  he  was  about  to  give 
us  proof  much  more  unequivocal  by  the  actual  offer  of 
pardon  for  all  our  sins  and  everlasting  blessedness  ?  There 
could  certainly  be  no  atoning  efficacy  in  the  exhibition 
of  this  attribute.  It  could  remove  no  obstacle  to  mercy, 
nor  lay  any  proper  foundation  for  the  offer  of  pardon  to 
the  penitent.  Yet  the  text  supposes  the  display  of  the 
attribute  intended  by  the  Apostle,  actually  to  remove 
some  obstacles ;  and  to  enable  God  to  be  at  the  same 
time  what  that  attribute  implies,  and  the  justifier  of  be- 
lievers. For  he  made  a  display  of  that  attribute,  («*s 
TO  eivai  aviov)  in  order  that  he  might  be,  both  dtxaiog  and 
the  justifier  of  men.* — And  this  is  implied  also  in  the 

*  Overlooking"  the  force  of  fig  TO  tivai  avrot^  and  supposing1  the  text 
not  to  point  our  attention  to  that  in  the  mediation  of  Christ  which  con- 
stitutes its  value  and  efficiency,  but  merely  to  state  the  general  facts,  that 
salvation  is  to  us  altogether  gratuitous,  and  that  it  comes  to  us  through 
the  atonement  of  Christ ;  some  believers  in  the  efficiency  of  the  atone- 
ment, have  reasoned  thus :  as  it  was  the  mercy  of  God  which  led  him 
to  seek  our  salvation,  and  as  salvation  is  to  us  a  free  gift,  it  accords 


12 

word  propitiation.  God  set  forth  his  Son  to  be  a  pro- 
pitiatory offering  for  the  manifestation  of  this  attribute, 
so  that  he  could  afterwards  justify  believers.  Now  is  a 
propitiatory  offering,  one  which  is  presented  to  God,  to 
prove  him  already  inclined  to  mercy,  or  to  make  him 
so  ?  Is  it  the  token  and  pledge  of  forgiveness,  or  the 
cause  and  ground  of  it  ?  If,  with  some  modern  writers, 
we  could  believe  that  the  atonement  made  by  Jesus 
Christ,  is,  not  the  meritorious  ground  of  justification,  but 
merely  a  tragic  scene,  intended  to  affect  us  and  bring  us 
to  repentance,  and  if  we  could  discover  the  necessity  and 
the  propriety  of  so  strange  a  procedure  ;  then,  indeed, 
we  might  suppose  God  to  have  set  forth  his  Son  as  a 
kind  of  propitiatory  offering  to  men  ;  —  and  for  the  pur- 
pose of  shewing  his  compassion  for  them.  One  insuper- 
able difficulty,  however,  would  yet  remain  ;  which  is, 
that  it  was  to  enable  God  to  have  mercy  on  believers, 
not  on  others,  that  an  atonement  was  necessary.  —  Bat 
suppose  all  these  difficulties  to  be  surmounted,  there  is 
still  another  objection  of  a  more  philological  character, 
arising  from  the  copulative  conjunction  in  the  expression, 
"just  and  the  justifier"  dutaLov  xai  dixaiowra.  Justifica- 
tion, it  must  be  admitted,  is  of  grace.  Now  by  retain- 
ing the  common  translation  of  dcxaios,  we  have  this  lucid 


with  the  scope  of  the  passage  to  render  dMcuovvv?]  benignity. 
—  The  answer  is,  that  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ  does  not  originate  from 
simple  mercy  on  the  part  of  God  ;  but  from  mercy  combined  with  a 
proper  regard  to  the  interests  of  the  universe.  —  It  is  therefore  not 
mere  mercy,  but  righteousness,  or  what  is  called  general  justice,  that  is 
displayed  in  this  scheme  of  salvation.  And  as  the  display  of  this  at- 
tribute is  that  which  gives  to  the  atonement  its  value  or  efficncy  ;  it  is 
subversive  of  the  whole  meaning  of  the  passage  to  render  the  word 
benignity. 


13 

meaning  of  the  clause,  that  he  might  be  just,  and  at  the 
same  time,  be  merciful.  But,  translate  dwaiog  merciful, 
and  what  will  be  the  sense  ? — that  he  might  be  merci- 
ful, and  at  the  same  time  be  merciful !  And  this  sense- 
less tautology,  will  be  rendered  still  more  insufferable 
if  we  suppose  dtxaioawij,  likewise,  to  signify  compassion. 
Having  now  shewn,  I  would  hope  satisfactorily,  the 
import  of  the  principal  words  of  the  text,  I  would  call 
your  attention  to  the  general  scope  and  connexion  of  the 
whole.  You  will  recollect  that  this  epistle  was  written 
within  thirty  years  of  the  crucifixion  ;  and  that  through 
all  the  preceding  ages,  God  had  shewn  kindness  towards 
such  as  trusted  in  his  mercy.  During  four  thousand 
years,  he  had,  in  the  face  of  all  his  intelligent  creatures, 
suspended  the  execution  of  justice.  Numerous  penitent 
sinners  he  had  received  to  his  bosom,  and  elevated  to 
mansions  above  ;  while,  during  this  long  period,  no 
atonement  had  been  made,  and  no  satisfactory  ground 
appeared,  to  justify  a  procedure  so  contrary  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  distributive  justipe  and  to  his  own  solemn  dec- 
larations in  the  law.  At  length  the  Saviour  had  ap- 
peared, the  atonement  was  made, — and  light  now  beam- 
ed on  the  hitherto  mysterious  conduct  of  the  righteous 
God. — Of  this  Saviour  the  text  says  :  Him  hath  God 
set  forth,  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice,  through  faith  in  his 
blood,  for  an  exhibition  of  his  own  righteousness,  in  re- 
gard to  the  remission  of  sins  committed  in  the  past  ages, 
through  the  merciful  forbearance  of  God.  This  propi- 
tiatory sacrifice  was,  1  say,  intended  for  an  exhibition,  in 
this  age  of  the  world,  of  his  own  righteousness  ;  so  that 
he  might  be,  and  might  now  be  seen  to  be,  a  righteous 
3 


14 

moral  governor,  and  at  the  same  time  be  the  justifier  of 
all  that  believe  in  Jesus  Christ* 

\I  will  now  turn  from  a  discussion  of  the  text,  to  a  dis- 
cussion of  the  subject  itself. — Why  was  an  atonement 
necessary  ?  What  were  the  objects  to  be  accomplish- 
ed by  it  ?  And  how  did  the  mediation  of  Christ  effect 
these  objects  ?  These  are  the  principal  questions  to 
be  answered.  I  shall,  however,  begin  with  another  : — 
what  are  the  reasons  which  either  induce  or  require 
God  to  inflict  any  punishment  whatever  on  transgressors  ? 
To  this  I  answer  : 

In  the  first  place,  there  is  a  real  difference  between 
right  actions  and  wrong  ones,  between  virtue  and  vice, 
or  sin  and  holiness.  The  former  are  lovely,  and  meri- 
torious ;  the  latter  are  unlovely,  and  of  ill-desert.  Ev- 
ery being  who  has  a  conscience,  feels  that  there  is  this 
difference.  No  man  holds  all  actions  to  be  equally  praise- 
worthy :  and  no  being,  whose  moral  sensibility  is  acute, 
can  fail  to  make  a  broad  distinction,  in  point  of  merit, 
between  that  person  who  performs  all  his  duties  to  him- 
self, to  his  fellow  creatures  and  to  his  God,  and  the  per- 
son who  is  destitute  of  every  virtue,  and  abandoned  to 
every  species  of  vice  and  crime.  Now  this  distinction, 

*  Instead  of  giving  a  list  of  the  numerous  commentators  and  others 
who  construe  this  text  substantially  in  the  manner  here  exhibited,  I 
will  refer  only  to  such  of  them  as  confirm  or  illustrate  their  interpre- 
tation by  important  remarks.  Grotius,  Defensio  Fidei  Cath.  in  Opp. 
torn.  III.  p.  303.  G.  C.  Storr,  Opuscula  Academ.  Vol.  II.  p.  190,  and 
Ueber  den  Zweck  des  Todes  Jesu,  subjoined  to  his  Brief  an  die  He- 
braer,  S.  553  ff.  Doderlein,  Instit.  Theol.  Christ.  II.  p.  448.  Veysie's 
Bampton  Lectures,  p.  218  f.  Nares,  Remarks  on  the  Version  of  N.T. 
pp.  154 — 162.  Magce,on  Aton.  and  Sacr.  pp.  127,261—263.  Connect. 
Ev.  Mag.  for  1805,  vol.  VII.  p.  161  f.  Rurge,  Essay  on  Aton.  pp.  29, 30. 


15 

which  even  we  can  see  and  feel  in  some  degree,  the 
holy  God  must  be  supposed  to  see  and  feel  far  more 
strongly  than  we  do.  If  then,  we  look  upon  some  deeds 
with  abhorrence,  and  on  the  perpetrators  of  them  with 
indignation  ;  while  certain  other  actions  we  admire,  and 
esteem  and  honour  those  who  perform  them  ;  much 
more,  must  we  suppose  the  infinite  and  holy  God  to 
have  such  feelings.  From  his  very  nature,  therefore, 
or  from  his  perfect  purity  and  intelligence,  we  suppose 
him  inclined  to  make  a  wide  difference  between  the  vir- 
tuous and  the  vicious,  between  those  who  do  such  things 
as  please  him,  and  those  who  do  such  things  as  he  ab- 
hors. This,  doubtless,  is  one  reason  why  he  rewards 
the  righteous  and  punishes  the  wicked. 

A  second  reason  why  God  should  do  this,  is,  that  the 
good  order  and  the  happiness  of  his  kingdom  require 
it.  The  righteous  obey,  and  the  wicked  transgress, 
those  laws  which  his  wisdom  and  goodness  have  ordain- 
ed. On  the  observance  of  these  laws,  the  order  and 
the  happiness  of  his  vast  kingdom,  and  of  every  part  of 
it,  depend.  And  hence,  as  the  moral  governor  of  the 
intelligent  universe,  as  the  being  to  whom  it  belongs 
to  guard  the  interests  of  this  vast  community, — not  by 
physical  force,  which  would  destroy  the  freedom  of  ac- 
tion, but  by  motives  suited  to  affect  the  minds  of  ra- 
tional and  moral  beings, — he  must,  necessarily,  make  a 
distinction  between  the  righteous  and  the  wicked ;  that 
is,  he  must  reward  the  one  and  punish  the  other.  He 
would  not  otherwise  do  right :  he  would  not  distribute 
justice  ;  nor  manifest  a  due  regard  to  the  interests  of 
his  great  kingdom.  He  would  not  administer  the  gov- 
ernment of  it  in  a  manner  worthy  of  himself:  his  char- 


16 

acter,  as  a  wise  and  rightfeous  ruler,  would  be  impeach- 
able. — "  That  be  far  from  thee," — said  Abraham,  inter- 
ceding for  guilty  Sodom, — "  that  be  far  from  thee,  to 
slay  the  righteous  with  the  wicked  ;  and  that  the  right- 
eous should  be  as  the  wicked,  that  be  far  from  thee  ; 
shall  not  the  Judge  of  all 'the  earth  do  right  ?" 

The  only  other  ground  of  punishment,  which  need  be 
mentioned,  is,  thirdly,  the  personal  benefit  of  the  indi- 
viduals who  transgress.  Some  divine  punishments,  par- 
ticularly those  inflicted  in  this  life,  we  may  suppose  to 
be  fatherly  chastisements,  intended  to  reclaim  the  wan- 
dering, and  thus  promote  their  own  best  interests.  Love 
or  kindness  to  the  individuals  themselves,  is  the  ground 
of  these  punishments.* 

Such  we  may  believe  to  be  the  principal  reasons,  why 
God  punishes  the  wicked. — And  which  of  them,  ex- 
cept perhaps  the  last,  can  any  man  suppose  so  holy 
and  unchangeable  a  being  as  God  is,  will  ever  cease  to 
regard?  Will  the  principles  of  his  very  nature  ever  be 
so  changed,  that  he  can  cease  to  feel  abhorrence  of  sin, 
and  esteem  for  virtue  ?  Or,  will  he  ever  become  re- 
gardless of  the  duties  of  his  station,  as  the  universal 
governor,  and  cease  to  care  for  the  order  and  happiness 
of  his  kingdom  ?  Till  he  can  do  all  this,  he  cannot  cor- 
dially receive  impenitent  transgressors  to  his  bosom,  and 
treat  them  with  that  kindness  which  he  shews  to  the 
righteous. 

Of  the  three  grounds  of  punishment  just  enumerated, 
the  first  is,  in  the  nature  of  things,  removeable  in  no  oth- 
er way  than  by  a  change  of  character  either  in  God  or 

*  See  a  lucid  statement  of  the  grounds  of  divine  punishments,  in 
Brettschneider's  Handbuch  der  Dogm.  B.  I.  S.  354  ff. 


17 

in  the  sinning  creature.  Nothing  that  a  Mediator  could 
do  would  remove  it.  The  holy  and  unchangeable  God 
can  never  cease  to  abhor  sin.  He  must  forever  feel  dif- 
ferently, and  be  inclined  to  conduct  differently,  towards 
the  righteous  and  the  wicked.  Nothing  can  ever  bring 
the  infinite  mind,  which  is  purity  itself,  into  harmony 
with  the  polluted  souls  of  sinning  creatures.  They  must 
become  holy ;  this,  and  this  only,  can  remove  the  first 
ground  of  punishment. — And  this  certainly  will  remove 
it ;  because  when  creatures  cease  to  be  sinners,  they 
must  cease  to  be  odious  in  the  sight  of  God.  Their  new 
and  holy  characters  render  them  now  lovely  in  his  view; 
and  he  can  therefore  feel  no  repugnance,  so  far  as  their 
present  characters  are  concerned,  to  embracing  them  as 
his  dear  children. — Such  a  change  in  the  sinner's  char- 
acter, will  likewise  remove  the  third  ground  of  punish- 
ment, which  was  the  reformation  of  the  sinner  himself. 
Because  this  object  is  already  obtained,  by  the  change 
supposed. 

x  Only  the  second  ground  of  punishment  then  remains 
to  be  removed;  and  to  remove  this,  and  this  only,  is  the 
proper  business  of  an  atonement.  This  is  an  obstacle 
to  his  forgiveness,  which  the  sinner  himself  can  never' 
remove.  He  has  committed  deeds  which  cannot  be 
recalled.  He  is  a  transgressor  of  the  law,  and  must  for- 
ever stand  guilty.  What  is  done,  can  never  be  undone. 
All  he  can  do,  will  be  to  repent  of  the  past,  and  cease 
to  do  evil  in  future.  His  repentance,  though  certainly 
proper,  cannot  change  the  nature  of  his  past  transgres- 
sions, nor  repair  the  injury  they  have  occasioned.  And 
no  future  obedience  can  be  more  than  his  immediate 
duty  for  the  time  being ;  it  can  never  atone  or  make 


18 

amends  for  past  disobedience.  He  has  violated  the  law 
of  God ;  and  nothing  he  can  do  or  suffer,  will  obliterate 
his  crime,  or  prevent  its  mischief  to  the  kingdom  of 
God.  The  good  of  the  universe  requires,  that  the  maj- 
esty of  the  law  be  maintained  inviolate  ;  and  this  is 
impossible,  let  him  do  what  he  will,  without  the  full  ex- 
ecution of  the  penalty  of  the  law  upon  him. 
x  But,  it  may  be  said ;  do  not  all  civil  governments 
grant  absolute  pardons  to  the  guilty  ?  Why  then,  may 
not  the  divine  government  do  the  same  ?  The  answer 
is,  because  God's  government  is  perfect ;  but  all  civil 
governments  are  imperfect.  They  are  weak,  and  can 
but  partially  obtain  their  end.  They  sometimes  give 
impunity  to  an  accomplice  in  a  crime,  if  he  will  bear 
testimony  against  his  associates ;  because  human  gov- 
ernments often  have  no  other  sufficient  means  of  detect- 
ing the  guilty.  They  pardon  a  condemned  criminal,  be- 
cause the  judge  erred  in  condemning  him  ;  or  because 
the  rigorous  execution  of  the  la  w  would,  in  his  case,  exceed 
the  demerits  of  his  crime  ;  or  because  the  loss  of  such  a 
citizen  to  the  state,  would  be  a  greater  evil  to  the  com- 
munity, than  the  suspension  of  the  arm  of  justice.  Such 
as  these  are  the  grounds,  on  which  pardons  in  civil  gov- 
ernments can  be  justified.  They  all  originate  from  the 
imperfection  of  human  laws,  and  from  the  incompeten- 
cy  of  human  beings  to  execute  justice.  But  no  such 
causes  can  exist  in  the  perfect  government  of  the  omnis- 
cient God.  He  therefore,  never  grants  absolute  par- 
dons. And  in  human  governments,  they  tend  so  much 
to  weaken  the  force  of  law  and  encourage  transgression, 
that  every  wise  lawgiver  endeavours  to  render  them  as 
few  and  rare  as  possible. 


19 

Again ;  it  may  be  said,  parents  and  guardians,  or 
heads  of  families  and  of  schools,  frequently  remit  pun- 
ishment, when  transgressors  repent  and  reform.  Why 
then,  may  not  the  great  parent  of  all,  do  the  same  ? 
The  answer  is,  that  the  primary  object  of  these  family 
governments  is  the  personal  good  of  the  individuals  ; 
and  in  such  little  communities,  established  chiefly  for 
the  benefit  of  the  several  members,  the  personal  inter- 
est or  advantage  of  each  bears  a  higher  proportion  to 
the  common  good  of  the  whole,  than  in  a  great  empire. 
Hence,  in  these  little  societies,  it  is  comparatively  of 
less  importance  to  support  the  honour  and  majesty  of 
law  at  the  expense  of  individual  good.  Yet,  even  here, 
some  regard  must  be  paid  to  the  public  good ;  and  of 
course,  to  the  claims  of  law.  And  in  proportion  to  the 
extent  of  a  community,  or  the  number  of  subjects  under 
the  same  government,  must  be  the  importance  of  fixed 
laws,  and  of  an  undeviating  adherence  to  them.  There 
is  a  difference  even  between  a  small  family  and  a  large 
one,  and  between  a  small  school  and  a  large  one.  The 
instructer  of  a  single  pupil,  may  pardon  him,  whenever 
it  will  not  be  injurious  to  the  pupil  himself;  but  if  he 
has  several  pupils,  it  is  far  otherwise. — Hence  it  appears, 
that  the  principles  and  maxims  of  paternal  govern- 
ments are  not  to  be  transferred  to  the  government  of 
nations,  and  much  less  to  that  of  worlds.  But,  has  it  not 
been  already  admitted,  that  God  sometimes  chastises 
his  creatures,  for  their  good  ?  And  does  not  this  shew, 
that  he  adopts  and  acts'upon,  the  principles  of  paternal 
governments  ? — Doubtless;  to  a  certain  extent  he  does. 
But  how  far  ? — is  the  question.  The  reasoning  just  ad- 
vanced, goes  to  shew, — not  that  the  personal  advantage 


20 

of  an  individual  is  never  regarded  by  the  divine  govern- 
ment,— but,  that  it  bears  a  very  small  proportion  to  the 
public  interests  of  God's  immense  kingdom ;  and  there- 
fore must  often,  very  often,  be  sacrificed.  It  must  never 
interfere  with  the  greater  good  of  the  whole.  Accord- 
ing to  the  views  heretofore  given,  so  far  as  God  punish- 
es his  creatures  merely  for  the  purpose  of  reforming 
them,  he  can  and  he  does  cease,  to  punish  when  they 
are  reclaimed.  But  so  far  as  he  punishes  for  the  pur- 
pose of  establishing  and  maintaining  public  law  and  -pub- 
lic justice,  individual  advantage  must  give  place  to  pub- 
lic good.  Now  the  latter,  rather  than  the  former,  must 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  or  from  the  extent  of  his 
empire  and  tha  immense  importance  of  stable  law  and 
order  in  it,  be  the  principal  ground  of  punishment  under 
the  divine  government.  Indeed,  all  those  retributions, 
which  are  to  follow  the  general  judgment,  seem  to  be- 
long to  this  class  of  punishments.  At  least,  we  have  no 
evidence,  that  the  fatherly  chastisements  of  God  ever 
extend  beyond  the  state  of  trial,  or  the  present  life. 

vThus  far  we  have  been  examining  and  attempting  to 
ascertain,  precisely,  the  nature  of  the  difficulty  which 
it  was  the  business  of  the  atonement  to  remove.  The 
difficulty,  it  appears,  consisted  wholly  in  the  second 
ground  of  punishment ;  that  is,  in  the  necessity  of  dis- 
tributive justice  to  the  wellbeing  of  the  universe. 

vTo  remove  this  difficulty,  or  to  enable  God  righteous- 
ly to  pardon  the  repenting  sinner  ;  the  atonement  must 
give  the  same  support  to  law,  or*  must  display  as  impres- 
sively the  perfect  holiness  and  justice  of  God,  as  the  ex- 
ecution of  the  law  on  transgressors  would.  It  must  be 
something  different  from  the  execution  of  the  law  itself; 


21 

because  it  is  to  be  a  substitute   for  it,  something  which 
will  render  it  safe  and   proper  to   suspend   the   regular 
course  of  distributive  justice. — If  such  an  expedient  can  ' 
be  found,  then,  an  adequate  atonement  is  possible  ;    oth- 
erwise it  is  not.* 

Now  such  an  expedient,  the  text  represents  the  sa- 
crifice of  Christ  to  be.  It  is  "  a  declaration  of  the  right- 
eousness of  God ;  so  that  he  might  be  just," — might  se- 
cure the  objects  of  distributive  justice,  as  it  becomes  a 
righteous  moral  governor  to  do; — "  and  yet  might  jus- 
tify," or  acquit  arid  exempt  from  punishment,  him  that 
believeth  in  Jesus.  It  was  in  the  nature  of  it,  an  exhi- 
bition or  proof — fvdfi£i$ — of  the  righteousness  of  God. 
It  did  not  consist  in  an  execution  of  the  law  on  any  be- 
ing whatever  ;  for  it  was  a  substitute  for  an  execution  of 
it. — It  did  not  annihilate  the  guilt  of  transgressors,  or 
cause  them  to  be  either  really  or  apparently  innocent  ; 
for  this  was  impossible :  it  rather  proclaimed  the  atro- 
city of  their  guilt. — It  did  not  fulfil  the  law,  or  satisfy  its 
demands  on  transgressors  ;  for  then  their  acquittal  would 
have  been  an  act  of  justice,  not  of  grace  ;  and  the  atone- 
ment would  have  been  but  another  mode  of  executing  the 
law  itself,  not  a  substitute  for  it.  Its  immediate  influence 
was  not  on  the  characters  and  relations  of  men  as  trans- 
gressors, nor  on  the  claims  of  the  law  upon  them.  Its  di- 

*  See  F.  G.  Siiskind,  iiber  die  Moglichkeit  der  Straffen-Auf  he- 
bung  oder  der  Siinden-Vergebung,  in  Flatus  Mag.  fur  christ.  Dogm. 
St.  I.  S.  1 — 68.  and  C.  G.  Brettschneider's  Handbuch  der  Dogm.  §.  158. 
Band  II.  S.  248—278.  Also  Dr.  J.  Edwards,  Three  Serm.  in  Selectt.  on 
Atonement,  pp.  330 — 337.  Dr.  Maxcy's  discourse,  ibid.  pp.  206 — 208. 
Dr.  Smalky^s  Sermon,  ibid.  pp.  112 — 114.  Dr.  Griffin,  on  the  Extent 
of  the  Atonement,  pp.  22 — 27.  Mr.  Burge*  Essay  on  the  script,  doctr. 
of  Atonement,  pp.  39 — 66. 
4 


22 

rect  operation  was  on  the  feelings  and  the  apprehensions 
of  the  beings  at  large,  who  are  under  the  moral  govern- 
vment  of  God.  In  two  respects,  it  coincided  precisely 
with  a  public  execution  of  the  law  itself:  its  immediate 
influence  was  on  the  same  persons  ;  and  that  influence 
was  produced  in  the  same  way, — by  means  of  a  public 
exhibition.  For  what  is  a  public  execution  of  the  law 
on  culprits,  but  a  public  exhibition?  and  an  exhibition, 
which  is  intended  to  affect  the  feelings  and  the  appre- 
hensions of  the  community, — to  impress  them  all  with 
high  respect  and  reverence  for  the  law,  that  stern  guar- 
dian of  the  public  weal  ?  The  atonement  to  be  a  prop- 
er substitute  for  the  execution  of  the  law,  ought  to  be 
a  public  exhibition ;  and  such  an  exhibition,  as  would 
impress  all  the  creatures  of  God  with  a  deep  and  aw- 
ful sense  of  the  majesty  and  sanctity  of  his  law,  of  the 
criminality  of  disobedience  to  it,  and  of  the  holy  unbend- 
ing rectitude  of  God  as  a  moral  governor. 

And  such,  according  to  the  text,  the  atonement  really 
was.  It  was  an  exhibition  or  manifestation  of  the  right- 
eousness of  God ;  and  an  exhibition  of  such  a  nature, 
as  must  strike  every  intelligent  beholder  with  astonish- 
ment. It  was  a  transaction,  without  a  parallel  in  the 
history  of  the  divine  government.  The  son  of  God,  the 
Lord  of  glory,  himself  descended  to  this  lower  world. 
He  veiled  his  godhead  in  a  human  body,  and  humbled 
himself  to  dwell  with  men.  He  toiled  and  bore  reproach, 
and  suffered  from  pain  and  weariness  and  hunger.  He 
condescended  to  instruct  men,  to  be  their  physician, 
their  friend,  their  very  servant ; — he  washed  his  disci- 
ples' feet.  He  was  obedient  to  every  ordinance  of  God 
and  man  ; — he  fulfilled  all  righteousness.  He  suffered 


23 

himself  to  be  reviled  and  persecuted,  to  be  arraigned, 
condemned  and  crucified.  He  expired  amidst  the  mock- 
ery of  Jews,  and  the  insults  of  a  Roman  soldiery. — That 
this  was  an  astonishing  exhibition,  an  exhibition  calculat- 
ed to  fill  the  mind  with  wonder  and  amazement;  every 

xone  feels  instantly. — The  only  difficulty  is  to  understand 
how  this  exhibition  was  a  display  of  the  righteousness 
of  God.  To  solve  it,  some  have  resorted  to  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  Son  of  God  became  our  sponsor,  and  sat- 
isfied the  demands  of  the  law  on  us,  by  suffering  in  our 
stead.  But  to  this  hypothesis  there  are  strong  objec-7 
tions.  To  suppose  that  Christ  was  really  and  truly  our 
sponsor,  and  that  he  suifered  in  this  character  ;  would 
involve  such  a  transfer  of  legal  obligations  and  liabilities 
and  merits,  as  is  inadmissible :  and  to  suppose  any  thing 
short  of  this,  will  not  explain  the  difficulty.  For  if,  while 
we  call  him  a  sponsor,  we  deny  that  he  was  legally  hoi- 
den  or  responsible  for  us,  and  liable  in  equity  to  suffer 
in  our  stead  ;  we  assign  no  intelligible  reason,  why  his 
sufferings  should  avail  any  thing  for  our  benefit,  or  dis- 

\play  at  all  the  righteousness  of  God. — Besides,  this  hy- 
pothesis,— like  all  the  others,  which  suppose  the  Son  of 
God  to  have  first  entered  into  a  close,  legal  connexion 
with  sinful  men,  and  afterwards  to  have  redeemed  them, 
— would  make  the  atonement  to  be  a  legal  satisfaction 
for  sin ;  and  then  the  acquittal  of  the  sinner  would  be 
no  pardon  at  all,  but  would  follow  in  the  regular  course 
of  law. — We  must,  therefore,  resort  to  some  other  solu- 
tion. Anl  what  is  more  simple,  and  at  the  same  time 
satisfactory,  than  that  which  is  suggested  by  the  text  ? 
The  atonement  was  an  exhibition  or  display.  That  is, 
it  was  a  symbolical  transaction.  It  was  a  transaction,  in  ' 


24 

which  God  and  his  Son  were  the  actors ;  and  they  act- 
ed in  perfect  harmony,  though  performing  different 
parts  in  the  august  drama.  The  Son  in  particular, 
passed  voluntarily  through  various  scenes  of  humiliation 
and  sorrow  and  suffering ;  while  the  Father  looked  on 
with  all  that  tenderness  and  deep  concern,  which  he — 
and  none  but  he — could  feel.  The  object  of  both,  in 
this  affecting  tragedy,  was  to  make  an  impression  on  the 
minds  of  rational  beings  every  where,  and  to  the  end  of 
time.  And  the  impression  to  be  made,  was,  that  God  is 
a  holy  and  righteous  God ;  that  while  inclined  to  mer- 
cy, he  cannot  forget  the  demands  of  justice,  and  the 
danger  to  his  kingdom  from  the  pardon  of  the  guilty  ; 
that  he  must  shew  his  feelings  on  this  subject;  and 
shew  them  so  clearly  and  fully,  that  all  his  rational 
creatures  shall  feel  that  he  honours  his  law  while  sus- 
pending its  operation,  as  much  as  he  would  by  the  exe- 
cution of  it. 

^But  how,  it  may  be  asked,  are  these  things  express- 
ed or  represented  by  this  transaction.  The  answer  is, 
— symbolically.  The  Son  of  God  came  down  to  our 
world,  to  do  and  to  suffer  what  he  did ;  not  merely  for 
the  sake  of  doing  those  acts  and  enduring  those  sorrows, 
but  for  the  sake  of  the  impression  to  be  made  on  the 
minds  of  ail  beholders,  by  his  labouring  and  suffering  in 
this  manner.  In  this  sense,  it  was  a  symbolical  trans- 
action. And  the  import  or  meaning  of  it,  as  of  every  oth- 
er symbol,  is  to  be  learned  either  from  the  circum- 
stances and  occasion  of  it,  or  from  the  explanation  that 
accompanies  it.  Hence  all  that  either  reason  or  reve- 
lation teaches,  respecting  the  object  of  Christ's  visit  to 
our  world,  may  properly  be  applied  to  the  explanation 


25 

of  this  significant  transaction. — Does  any  object,  that 
viewed  in  this  light,  it  is  an  obscure  and  unnatural  sym- 
bol? I  might  ask  the  objector  to  shew  the  natural  fit- 
ness of  other  symbols  both  human  and  divine,  to  express 
the  import  which  is  ascribed  to  them.  Words,  for  in- 
stance, are  symbols  of  human  thoughts  and  emotions. 
But  what  is  there  in  the  nature  of  articulate  sounds,  to 
make  them  significant  of  the  thoughts  and  emotions  of 
the  soul  ?  or  to  make  each  word  significant  of  one  par- 
ticular thought,  rather  than  another  ?  The  only  an- 
swer here,  is  that  men  have  agreed  to  use  certain 

•sounds  as  symbols  of  certain  thoughts  ;  and  thence  it  is, 
they  have  acquired  a  meaning.     In  the   same    way,  the 

vcommon  symbolical  actions  acquire  a  definite  meaning. 
Why  does  inclining  the  body  forward  express  respect? 
or  falling  on  the  knees  betoken  supplication?  These 
actions  would  not  have  such  definite  meanings,  if  men 
had  not  agreed  to  use  them  for  such  purposes.  Yet 
who  does  not  now,  understand  and  feel  their  import? 
Take  an  example.  A  child  commits  a  fault;  and  is  re- 
quired, in  token  of  his  repentance,  to  fall  upon  his  knees 
and  ask  forgiveness.  He  does  so ;  and  the  parent  is 
satisfied ;  and  all  the  family  sympathize  with  the  offen- 
der, and  feel  that  he  may  now  properly  be  forgiven. — 
But  these,  it  may  be  said,  are  well  known  symbols. 
True;  yet  all  their  significancy,  or  at  least  their  defi- 
nite import,  originates  from  the  arbitrary  pleasure  of 
those  who  introduced  them  and  gave  them  currency. 
And  in  the  numerous  symbols  of  divine  appointment, 
there  was  the  same  indefiniteness  of  meaning,  the  same 
natural  unfitness  to  convey  precise  notions  to  the  mind, 
till  God  by  a  sovereign  act  declared  what  meaning 


26 

should  be  assigned  them.  This  is  true  of  the  covenant 
of  the  rainbow,  of  sacrifices,  circumcision,  baptism,  the 
Lord's  supper, — indeed,  of  nearly  all  religious  rites  un- 
der both  the  old  dispensation  and  the  new. — Now  if 
men  regulate  a  great  part  of  their  intercourse,  and  con- 
vey to  each  other  most  of  their  thoughts  and  feelings 
and  determinations,  by  arbitrary  symbols  ;  and  if  God  has 
appointed  various  standing  symbols,  of  the  same  charac- 
ter, to  denote  his  pleasure  or  purposes,  and  to  be  expres- 
sive of  the  most  solemn  devotions  of  his  creatures  ; 
may  he  not  employ  an  extraordinary  symbol,  of  like 
character,  for  the  special  purpose  of  shewing  with  what 
feelings  and  views  he  offers  pardon  to  the  penitent? 
Suppose  we  could  discern  no  natural  fitness  in  this  sym- 
bol to  convey  to  us  any  definite  impressions ;  is  not  this 
true  of  most  symbols  ? — But  I  venture  to  say,  this  sym- 
bol has  a  natural  fitness  for  its  object.  Its  primary  ob- 
ject was  not  so  much  to  enlighten  the  understanding,  as 
to  impress  the  feelings  of  creatures.  A  mere  revela- 
tion, written  or  oral,  might  have  been  sufficient,  if  the 
former  of  these  had  been  the  object.  Again,  the  feel- 
ings of  creatures  were  to  be  impressed  by  an  exhibi- 
tion, not  of  the  intellectual  conceptions  of  the  divine 
mind,  but  of  the  determinate  purposes  and  the  holy 
feelings  of  God.  And,  the  impression  to  be  made,  was 
to  be  universal,  and  deep  and  lasting  as  eternity.  Now 
the  symbol  chosen,  was  certainly  calculated  to  make  a 
deep  and  lasting  impression  on  the  minds  of  creatures. 
This  all  must  admit.  It  was  also  of  such  a  nature,  as 
to  exhibit  uncommon  strength  of  feeling  and  very  great 
decision  of  mind,  in  regard  to  something,  on  the  part 
of  God  the  Father  and  his  Son.  Never  did  they  perform 


27 

an  act  indicative  of  so  intense  desire  and  purpose,  or  one 
that  seemed  to  involve  so  much  selfdenial,  so  much  pain- 
ful effort.  This  symbol  then,  had  all  that  is  necessary 
in  any  symbol  of  emotion  or  purpose,  to  give  it  fitness 
for  its  object.  As  soon  as  the  import  of  it  is  made 
known,  it  produces,  and  actually  has  produced,  the  ef- 
fect designed.  For  the  preaching  of  the  cross,  the  mere 
statement  of  what  Christ  has  done  and  suffered  for  the 
salvation  of  men,  has  impressed  and  converted  all  the 
nations  which  have  been  favoured  with  it.  And  the 
truly  pious  in  all  ages  of  the  church,  though  differing 
greatly  in  their  conceptions  of  the  nature  and  operations 
of  Christ's  sacrifice,  have  united  in  admiring  the  wisdom 
of  this  plan  of  redemption.  They  have  felt  that  it  dis- 
played,— though  unable  perhaps  to  tell  how, — the  righ- 
teousness as  well  as  the  goodness  of  God.  It  has  actu- 
ally led  them  to  new  and  adoring  views  of  the  divine 
Being;  and  has  caused  them  to  feel,  that  this  way  of 
salvation  exhibited  to  them  the  most  constraining  mo- 
tives to  forsake  iniquity  and  return  to  the  love  arid  ser- 
vice of  their  Maker. 

From  this  view  of  the  natuce  of  the  atonement,  arise 
several  reflections  of  no  small  importance. 

1.  The  efficiency,  and  of  course  the  value,  of  the 
atonement  made  by  Jesus  Christ,  is  proportionate  to  the 
dignity  of  his  character. — For  his  toils  and  sufferings 
were  an  exhibition,  the  object  of  which  was  to  make  a 
deep  and  lasting  impression  on  the  intelligent  universe. 
They  were  intended  to  shew  how  solicitous  God  is  to 
prevent  his  creatures  from  supposing  him  to  make  light 
of  transgression,  because  he  lets  it  go  unpunished.  Now 
the  strength  of  the  impression  made  by  the  exhibition, 


28 

is  of  vast  importance  ;  for  it  is  the  visible  measure  of 
the  divine  displeasure  at  sin.  If  the  whole  exhibition 
makes  no  deep  and  lasting  impression,  if  it  is  viewed  as 
an  ordinary  and  trivial  occurrence  ;  it  will  be  inefficient 
and  useless,  or  perhaps  worse  than  useless.  It  is  only 
by  being  such  an  exhibition  as  will  strike  every  behold- 
er with  astonishment  and  awe,  such  as  will  make  an  im- 
pression too  deep  ever  to  be  forgotten,  that  it  can  an- 
swer effectually  the  ends  of  an  atonement. — If  now,  we 
should  suppose  the  Mediator  to  have  been  a  mere  man, 
an  eminent  prophet,  perhaps ;  and  that  he  endured  and 
performed  what  the  gospel  relates; — what  was  there 
here,  more  than  has  often  occurred  ?  Is  it  a  strange 
thing  in  our  world,  for  good  men  to  be  persecuted  and 
put  to  death  ?  Were  not  many  prophets  and  righteous 
men  so  treated  by  the  ancient  Jews  ?  If  then  God  has 
selected  one  of  these  common  occurrences,  and  appoint- 
ed it  to  be  the  special  symbol  of  his  concern  for  the  hon- 
our of  his  law  ;  what  is  gained  by  the  symbol,  that 
would  not  be  gained,  without  it,  by  a  mere  declaration  ? 
Will  this  effectually  secure  reverence  for  his  law,  and 
impress  transgressors  with  an  awful  sense  of  the  holiness 
of  God?  Will  it  not  rather  encourage  transgression,  by 
seeming  to  prove  that  sin  is  quite  a  venial  thing  in  God's 
account? — Let  us  next  suppose,  as  some  have  supposed, 
that  the  Mediator  was  the  highest  and  noblest  created 
or  derived  being  in  the  universe  ;  but  still,  a  creature, 
and  therefore  infinitely  beneath  the  rank  of  God  him- 
self. Such  an  exalted  being,  we  must  suppose,  would 
be  very  dear  to  God.  Of  course,  for  God  to  give  him 
up  to  be  reviled  and  spit  upon  and  crucified,  must  shew 
that  he  regards  the  occasion  which  makes  it  necessary, 


29 

to  be  a  very  serious  and  important  one.  Because,  for 
such  a  being  to  be  given  up  to  so  great  indignity  and 
suffering,  would  be  an  extraordinary  thing  ;  and  would 
betoken  something  of  unusual  occurrence  in  divine  prov- 
idence. But,  as  the  sufferings  of  this  exalted  creature 
were  temporary,  and  as  he  was  raised  to  greater  hon- 
ours afterwards;  he  experienced  perhaps  no  real  loss. 
Viewed  in  itself,  the  transaction  might  be  regarded  as 
only  one  of  the  more  uncommon  of  those  mysterious 
events  which  occur  in  the  providence  of  God.  And 
when  the  object  of  it  should  be  made  known,  the  natu- 
ral inference  would  be,  that  God  felt  it  to  be  somewhat 
dangerous  to  suspend  the  course  of  justice  towards  trans- 
gressors, and  was  willing  to  take  some  pains  to  prevent 
the  consequences.  But  still,  if  the  honour  of  his  law 
and  the  good  order  and  happiness  of  his  kingdom,  when 
weighed  in  his  balance,  are  equivalent  only  to  such  suf- 
ferings of  such  a  creature  ;  they  are  in  his  account  but 
of  limited  value  :  and  it  is  by  no  means  certain,  that  he 
may  not  be  induced  by  some  consideration,  and  that  not 
of  infinite  value  neither,  to  sacrifice  them  altogether. 
Thus,  such  an  atonement  would  fall  short  of  declaring 
and  evincing,  fully,  "the  righteousness  of  God."  It 
would  not  enable  him  to  "be  just,"  just  to  himself  and 
to  his  kingdom,  and  yet  to  "justify  the  believer."  Such 
an  exhibition  would  fall  far,  very  far,  short  of  making  as 
deep  and  lasting  an  impression  on  the  inhabitants  of 
both  worlds,  as  would  be  produced  by  the  execution 
of  the  sentence  of  the  law  upon  transgressors.  It  would 
therefore  be  an  inadequate  atonement. — But,  let  us  sup- 
pose now,  that  the  Mediator  was  in  dignity  and  power 
on  a  level  with  God  the  Father,  and  in  an  equal  degree 


30 

possessed  of  all  divine  attributes  ;  and  that  he  condescend- 
ed to  unite  himself  with  a  mortal  man  ;  and  in  this  state 
submitted  to  be  reviled,  and  loaded  with  insults,  and  per- 
secuted even  unto  death  ;  and  we  have  an  exhibition, 
at  which  the  universe  may  justly  stand  amazed.  It  is 
needless  to  object,  that  it  was  only  the  human  nature  of 
the  complex  person,  which  suffered  pain  and  death.  It 
was  so.  But  what  could  the  infinite  and  impassible  God 
do  more  ?  He  became  personally  united  to  an  abused, 
suffering  mortal,  and  thus  bore  a  load  of  indignity 
heaped  upon  himself.  The  human  mind  can  conceive 
of  no  exhibition  calculated  to  produce  a  deeper  impres- 
sion. Of  course,  this  appears  to  be  the  most  efficacious 
atonement,  the  best  substitute  for  the  execution  of  the 
law,  which  it  was  possible  for  infinite  wisdom  to  devise. 
2.  According  to  the  view  we  have  taken  of  the  na- 
ture and  design  of  the  atonement,  the  justification  of  be- 
lievers is  not  a  justification  founded  on  the  principles  of 
law  and  distributive  justice.  It  is  an  absolute  pardon,  an 
act  of  mere  grace  ;  and  of  grace  on  the  part  of  God  the 
Father,  as  well  as  on  that  of  God  the  Son.  For  the 
operation  of  Christ's  sacrifice,  it  appears,  was  not  on  the 
regular  course  of  distributive  justice  in  regard  to  indi- 
vidual transgressors.  Its  influence  was  on  the  public 
feeling  respecting  the  character  of  God.  And  it  only 
enabled  God,  with  honour  to  himself  and  safety  to  his 
kingdom,  to  gratify  the  desires  of  his  heart  by  the  par- 
don of  repenting  sinners.  Justification,  therefore,  is  a 
real  departure  from  the  regular  course  of  justice  ;  and 
such  a  departure  from  it,  as  leaves  the  claims  of  the  law 
on  the  persons  justified,  forever  unsatisfied.  This  is  a 
legitimate  inference  from  the  principles  which  have 


31 

been  advanced.     And  it  is  confirmed  by  the  following 
considerations. 

If  the  atonement  causes  transgressors  to  be  justified 
on  the  principles  of  law  and  distributive  justice,  either 
it  must  change  the  principles  of  the  law  itself,  or  it 
must  divest  the  transgressor  of  guilt  and  ill  desert,  or  it 
must  legally  and  fully  satisfy  the  demands  of  the  violat- 
ed law  upon  him. — But  the  first  is  impossible.  The 
law  of  God  is  founded  on  the  eternal  and  immutable 
principles  of  distributive  justice.  It  renders  to  every 
man  according  to  his  deserts.  Till  the  distinction  be- 
tween right  and  wrong  shall  cease  to  exist,  or  the  Om- 
niscient cease  to  discern  it  and  regard  it ;  the  principles 
of  the  divine  law  must  remain  unaltered.  The  atone- 
ment then  did  not  change  the  law. — Neither  did  it  di- 
vest the  transgressor  of  his  guilt  and  ill  desert.  It 
could  neither  recall  the  deeds  he  had  committed,  nor 
change  their  moral  character,  nor  separate  from  him 
the  guilt  of  them.  It  therefore  could  not  make  the 
transgressor  to  become  really  innocent.  Nor  did  it 
"  cover  over"  his  sins,  or  conceal  them  and  cause  them 
to  be  overlooked  and  forgotten.  For,  the  pardoned  sin- 
ner not  only  remains,  in  fact,  the  same  guilty  creature 
he  was  before  ;  but  he  is  viewed  and  treated  by  his 
Maker,  as  personally  guilty;  and  he  must  feel  himself 
to  be  so,  arid  ingenuously  confess  and  mourn  over  his 
transgressions,  in  order  to  obtain  forgiveness ;  and  if  re- 
ceived to  mercy,  he  must  forever  adore  and  praise  the 
abounding  grace  of  God  in  his  salvation.  The  atone- 
ment then,  did  not  divest  the  transgressor  of  his  guilt  or 
ill  desert. 

Neither  did  it  satisfy  the  demands  of  the  violated  law 


32 

upon  him.  For,  what  were  the  demands  of  the  violat- 
ed law  ?  Not,  that  some  transferable  good  should  be 
surrendered  and  paid  over  to  God  or  to  the  law,  as  be- 
ing forfeited  by  the  transgressor.  The  law  did  not  or- 
dain, that,  in  case  we  sinned,  certain  privileges  or  valua- 
ble possessions  held  by  us,  should  be  forfeited  into  the 
hands  of  another  or  to  the  public,  who  might  sue  for 
them  and  recover  them.  Had  this  been  the  case,  the 
Mediator  might,  perhaps,  have  been  able  to  pay  the 
forfeiture,  or  something  equivalent  to  it ;  and  thus  have 
virtually  satisfied  the  law.  But  the  law  ordained  no 
such  thing.  When  transgressed,  it  requires  no  pay- 
ment, no  transfer  of  any  thing  whatever,  to  another. 
What  then  does  it  demand?  That  the  sinner  himself 
suffer  the  punishment,  which  it  denounces.  The  violat- 
ed law  holds  him  personally  guilty,  and  it  requires  that 
due  punishment  fall  on  his  head,  and  on  his  only.  For 
the  law  of  God,  as  already  observed,  is  founded  on 
the  principles  of  distributive  justice,  which  renders  to 
every  one  according  to  his  deserts.  It  therefore,  care- 
fully discriminates  between  the  innocent  and  the  guilty ; 
and  it  never  suffers  the  distinction  to  be  overlooked  or 
forgotten.  When  once  a  creature  becomes  a  transgres- 
sor of  its  commands  or  prohibitions,  it  never  is  satisfied, 
and  never  can  be,  with  any  thing  short  of  the  full  exe- 
cution of  the  threatened  penalty  on  the  transgressor 
himself. — And  the  same  is  true  of  criminal  law  in  hu- 
man governments.  No  judge  can  admit  an  innocent  per- 
son to  suffer  an  infamous  or  capital  punishment,  in  place 
of  the  person  found  guilty.  If  a  few  rare  instances  of 
such  a  procedure  can  be  gleaned  from  ancient  history, 
they  must  be  ascribed  to  the  ignorance  of  the  times  :  for 


33 

neither  distributive  justice  nor  the  sound  maxims  of 
criminal  law  will  vindicate  them.  Thus  Zaleucus,  the 
Locrian  lawgiver,  is  said  to  have  made  a  law  that  eve- 
ry adulterer  should  suffer  the  loss  of  both  his  eyes.  Af- 
terwards, his  own  son  being  found  guilty,  the  story  is, 
that  the  father  caused  one  of  his  own  eyes  to  be  pluck- 
ed out,  and  then  one  of  his  son's  eyes.  This  was  an  ex- 
pedient, which  might  serve  very  well  to  shew  how  much 
he  revered  the  law,  and  his  fear  of  lessening  its  author- 
ity. But  it  was  not  an  execution  of  the  law.  The  fath- 
er's loss  of  an  eye  was  not  what  the  law  demanded,  nor 
any  part  of  it.  As  a  judge,  Zaleucus  could  not  legally 
decree  it;  nor  would  distributive  justice  tolerate  it.  A 
true  description  of  this  transaction  would  be,  that  the 
penalty  of  the  law  was  in  part  remitted,  through  the 
clemency  of  the  lawgiver,  who  voluntarily  submitted 
himself  to  a  great  calamity,  with  the  hope  that  it  would 
cause  the  law  to  be  respected,  as  much  as  the  full  exe- 
cution of  it.*  And  thus  also  the  bloody  sacrifice  of  the 
Mediator,  was  not  what  the  law  of  God  demanded,  or 
could  accept,  as  a  legal  satisfaction  for  our  sins.  AH 
that  it  could  do,  was,  to  display  the  feelings  of  God  in 
regard  to  his  law ;  and  to  secure,  by  the  impression  it 
made,  the  public  objects  which  would  be  gained  by  an 
execution  of  the  law.  It  did  not  cancel  any  of  the 
claims  of  the  law  on  us.  And  hence,  after  the  atone- 
ment was  made,  God  was  under  no  legal  obligations  to 
exempt  any  man  from  punishment.  If  he  had  never 

*  See  Valerius  Maximus,  Exemp.  Mem.  L.  vi.  c.  v.  p.  557.  ed.  Thysii, 
1655,  whose  reflection  is;  Ita  debitum  supplicii  modum  legi  reddidit, 
aequitatis  admirabili  temperamento,  se  inter  misericordem  patrem  et 
justum  legislatorem  partituSi 


34 

pardoned  a  single  transgressor,  neither  the  law  nor  dis- 
tributive justice  would  have  been  contravened.  And  if 
he  pardons  at  all,  it  is  mere  grace.  Or  to  state  it  oth- 
erwise, the  atonement  was  not  of  such  a  nature  as  tore- 
quire  God  to  pardon  us,  but  it  enables  him  to  do  it  with 
credit  to  himself  and  safety  to  his  kingdom.* 

3.  From  this  view  of  the  atonement,  it  appears  that 
there  is  no  foundation   for  those  controversies  which 
have  been  raised,  respecting  the  extent  of  the  atonement. 
It   has  been  debated   whether  Christ   made   atonement 
for  the  elect  only,  or  for  all  men  :    and,  whether  his  sa- 
crifice procures  for  believers  forgiveness   merely,  or  all 
the  other   blessings   likewise   that  are   conferred   upon 
them.     These  controversies  arise  from  the  supposition, 
that  the    atonement  draws  after  it,  by  necessary  conse- 
quence, the  salvation  or  at   least  the  pardon  of  all  that 
believe.     And  they  have  given  no  little  trouble  to  those 
who  hold  the  doctrine  of  vicarious  satisfaction,  whether 
by  the  imputation  of  guilt  or  the  transfer  of  punishment. 
On  such  a  supposition,  these  controversies   are   of  vast 
moment ;  and  cannot  be  avoided.     For,  if  the  Redeem- 
er  made   legal   and   proper   satisfaction  for   the  sins  of 
any  ;  it  is  a  fair  inquiry,  and  unavoidable  too,  for  whose 
sins  did  he   make  satisfaction  ?     And  the  answer  must 
be,  for  the  sins  of  all,  or  for  the  sins  of  a  part  only.     So, 
if  the  atonement  was,  necessarily  and  inseparably,  con- 
nected with  the  bestowment   of  blessings  on  believers ; 
how  far  does  this  connexion  extend  ?     Does  it  reach  to 
all  the  blessings  which  God  now  confers,  or  only  to  some 
part  of  them  ?     But,  if  the  views  given  in  this  discourse 
be  correct,  we  may  say  to  the  disputants  on  both  sides 

*  See  the  reference  and  note,  which  form  Appendix  C. 


35 

of  these  controversies,  as  the  Saviour  once  to  the  Sad- 
ducees  ;  ye  do  err,  not  knowing  the  scriptures  ;  for  the 
relation  you  both  take  for  granted,  has  no  existence. 

^4.  The  view  we  have  taken  of  the  nature  of  the 
atonement,  may  assist  us  in  judging  of  the  various  sys- 
tems and  speculations  in  regard  to  what  is  called  the  mat- 
ter of  the  atonement,  or  the  effects  produced  respec- 
tively by  the  obedience  and  the  sufferings  of  the  Media- 
tor. One  tells  us  that  the  atonement  consisted  in  suf- 
fering ;  another,  that  it  consisted  in  obedience ;  and  a 
third,  that  it  consisted  in  both.  According  to  some, 
Christ's  sufferings  procured  us  pardon,  and  his  obedience 
procured  us  merit;  and  both  together,  complete  salva- 
tion. According  to  others,  his  sufferings  go  to  shield  us 
from  punishment,  but  all  positive  blessings  are  the  free 
gift  of  God.  One  has  told  us,  that  Christ's  obedience 
or  virtue  entitled  him  to  a  reward;  and  that,  on  the  al- 
lowance of  his  claim,  he  insisted  on  liberty  to  dispose  of 
us  at  his  pleasure.*  Many  have  supposed  that  his  obe- 
dience, his  holy  character,  was  necessary  to  render  his 
sufferings,  meritorious  or  efficient  ;  but  that,  in  itself,  it 
had  no  atoning  influence.  The  general  opinion  has  been, 
that  the  sufferings  of  Christ  constituted  the  atonement, 
or  at  least  was  the  sole  ground  of  our  forgiveness. — 
Without  developing  farther  the  various  opinions  which 
have  been  entertained,  or  stopping  to  canvass  particular 
hypotheses  ;  I  will  observe,  that  if  the  view  we  have 
taken  in  this  discourse  of  the  nature  of  the  atonement, 
be  correct ;  it  will  throw  much  light  over  this  whole 
subject,  and  shew  that  there  is  not  ground  for  so  many 

*  See  an  Essay  on  Redemption,  by  John  Balguy,  pp.  107,  8vo. 
2d  ed.  1785. 


36 

nice  distinctions  as  some  have  made. — The  atonement 
was  not  a  legal  or  a  forensic  transaction.  It  was  alto- 
gether extrajudicial,  or  out  of  the  ordinary  course  of  le- 
gal procedure.  It  was  an  expedient  for  avoiding  a  le- 
gal procedure  in  regard  to  believers.  It  was  in  its  na- 
ture, simply^a  display  or  exhibition,  intended  to  impress 
on  all  creatures  a  deep  sense  of  "  the  righteousness  of 
God"  as  a  moral  governor.  Of  course,  any  and  every 
part  of  the  exhibition,  and  every  circumstance  attending 
it, — every  thing  that  Christ  either  did  or  suffered,  from 
the  time  of  his  descent  from  heaven  till  his  return  thith- 
er,— had  an  atoning  efficacy,  so  far  as  it  contributed  to 
render  the  exhibition  as  a  whole  more  impressive.  For 
the  transaction  operated  as  a  whole,  and  was  intended 
to  produce  one  general  effect.  It  is  not  then  to  be 
anatomized,  and  to  have  distinct  offices  assigned  to  its 
different  members.  Doubtless  some  scenes  in  that  august 
tragedy,  which  occupied  more  than  thirty  years  in  the 
performance,  were  more  impressive,  and  of  course  con- 
tributed more  to  the  atonement,  than  others.  The  de- 
scent of  the  Son  of  God  and  his  assumption  of  our  na- 
tures, or  the  first  opening  scene  of  the  tragedy,  was 
very  striking.  His  entrance  on  the  arduous  and  benev- 
olent work  of  a  public  teacher  and  a  public  benefactor, 
was  a  sublime  scene.  Various  others,  of  much  interest, 
followed  rapidly.  The  plot  thickened,  and  the  whole 
assumed  a  deeper  and  deeper  colouring,  till  the  last  aw- 
ful scene,  which  displayed  the  Son  of  God  nailed  to  a 
cross,  in  agony,  unpitied,  and  bowing  his  head  in  death. 
This  was  certainly  the  most  stupendous  scene  in  the 
whole  exhibition.  It  was  so  viewed  by  the  apostles  as 
well  as  by  common  Christians ;  for  it  is  most  dwelt  on 


37 

by  them ;  and  is  often  spoken  of  as  if  the  whole  atone- 
ment was  concentrated  in  it.  "  The  blood  of  Christ 
cleanseth : — We  are  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of 
his  Son  : — He  redeemed  us  to  God  by  his  blood  :  He 
made  his  soul  an  offering  for  sin." — Yet  doubtless  his 
sufferings  anterior  to  his  crucifixion,  the  various  "  travails 
of  his  soul"  while  on  earth,  come  into  the  atonement. 
Nor  are  his  active  labours  excluded  by  the  apostles. 
"  By  the  righteousness  of  one,  the  free  gift  came  upon 
all  men  unto  justification  : — for  as  by  one  man's  disobe- 
dience many  were  made  sinners  ;  so  by  the  obedience 
of  one  shall  many  be  made  righteous." 

5.  The  views  exhibited  in  this  discourse,  may  suggest 
to  us  some  of  the  reasons  why  repentance  and  faith  are 
required  of  those  to  be  saved  by  Jesus  Christ. 

As  the  atonement  has  no  effect  upon  our  characters 
or  deserts,  but  leaves  us  just  as  guilty  arid  obnoxious  to 
punishment  as  we  were  before  ;  as  it  leaves  the  law  in 
full  force  against  us,  and  imposes  no  obligation  on  the 
Lawgiver  to  acquit  and  save  us  ;  but  merely  enables  him 
to  do  it  consistently  with  his  own  honour  and  with  the 
public  interests  of  his  kingdom ;  it  is  evident,  that  God 
may  now  offer  us  salvation  on  what  terms  he  shall  think 
proper.  And,  I  might  add,  he  may  offer  it  to  whom  he 
thinks  proper,  to  a  part  or  to  all  ;  for  the  atonement 
leaves  us  all  equally  without  claims,  and  without  hopes 
too,  except  from  the  mere  mercy  of  God. — Now  the 
terms  he  is  pleased  to  state,  are  repentance  and  faith. 
"Except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all  likewise  perish."  "  Be- 
lieve on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be 
saved." 

Repentance  or  reformation  is  required  of  as,  not  be- 


38 

cause  it  is  any  satisfaction  for  our  past  transgressions,  or 
by  itself  an  adequate  ground  of  pardon  ;  but  because  it 
is  necessarily  a  part  of  the  plan  of  salvation  by  grace, 
founded  on  the  atonement.  For,  in  the  first  place,  the 
atoneaient  removes  only  the  second  ground  of  punish- 
ment, which  is  the  necessity  of  treating  all  creatures  ac- 
cording to  their  personal  merits,  in  order  to  preserve 
the  influence  of  law  and  secure  the  tranquillity  and  hap- 
piness of  the  universe.  The  first  arid  the  third  grounds 
of  punishment,  the  atonement  does  not  remove,  or  even 
touch.  The  settled  abhorrence  of  all  sin  which  the  ho- 
ly God  cannot  but  feel,  or  the  entire  repugnance  of  his 
nature  to  the  admission  of  depraved  sinning  creatures  to 
an  equal  share  in  his  affection  and  his  favours  with  his 
obedient  holy  creatures,  which  was  the  first  ground  of 
punishment ;  no  atonement  could  possibly  remove.  It 
can  never  be  removed,  but  by  the  repentance  of  the 
sinning  creature,  by  his  becoming  a  holy  and  obedient 
child  of  God.  So  the  third  ground  of  punishment,  or 
the  reformation  and  moral  improvement  of  the  sinning 
creature ;  must  remain  of  course,  so  long  as  the  trans- 
gressor continues  impenitent  and  unreformed.  Now,  as 
the  atonement  could  not  remove  either  of  these  grounds 
of  punishment,  or  even  weaken  them  in  the  slightest  de- 
gree ;  repentance  is  just  as  necessary  to  salvation,  as  if 
there  had  never  been  an  atonement  made. — Again  : 
from  the  character  of  God,  as  it  is  displayed  by  the 
atonement,  it  appears  that  it  is  his  fixed  purpose  to  pre- 
serve his  kingdom  pure^  so  far  at  least  as  it  can  be  done 
by  moral  causes.  This  is  a  prime  object  of  all  his  pro- 
ceedings. How  then  can  he,  consistently  with  his  de- 
signs, offer  pardon  to  the  inhabitants  of  a  sinful  world, 


39 

without  insisting  on  their  repentance  ?  Evidently,  fie 
would  frustrate  his  own  purposes,  if  he  should  suffer  his 
Son  to  become  the  minister  of  sin.  When  opportunity 
was  presented  him  for  bringing  the  most  powerful  of  all 
motives  for  amendment,  to  bear  on  the  minds  of  a  whole 
race  of  fallen  creatures,  he  would  neglect  it,  and  would 
leave  them  wholly  to  their  own  choice  whether  to  be 
virtuous  or  vicious. — And  further,  such  a  procedure 
would  greatly  impair,  if  not  entirely  destroy,  the  effica- 
cy of  the  atonement  on  his  whole  kingdom.  For  to  of- 
fer pardon  to  transgressors,  without  insisting  on  their  re- 
pentance, when  it  might  so  easily  be  done,  and  when  it 
would  be  so  likely  to  produce  the  best  effects  ;  would 
indicate  very  great  indifference  to  sin.  It  would  be  an 
exhibition  of  character  directly  opposed  to  the  exhibi- 
tion made  by  the  atonement;  and  would  therefore  pow- 
erfully counteract  its  efficacy.  Thus  to  preserve  the 
atonement  unimpaired,  to  render  it  a  safe  and  sufficient 
ground  of  pardon;  the  repentance,  the  entire  reforma- 
tion of  the  pardoned  sinner  must  be  peremptorily  de- 
manded. 

Faith,  the  other  condition  of  salvation,  is  a  belief  of 
the  truths  exhibited  in  the  Gospel,  and  a  reliance  on 
the  mercy  of  God,  through  Jesus  Christ,  for  justification 
and  eternal  life. — Wherever  the  Gospel  is  preached, 
this  is  a  suitable  condition  ;  not  however,  because  faith 
has  power  to  unite  us  to  the  Redeemer,  in  such  a  mys- 
terious union  as  causes  our  guilt  or  punishment  to  be 
transferable  to  him,  and  his  merits  to  pass  back  to  us  or 
to  our  account.  For  such  a  union  is  deemed  impossi- 
ble ;  nor  is  it  supposed  or  required  by  the  doctrine  of 
the  atonement. — But  faith  is  properly  made  a  condition 


40 

of  salvation,  because  it  implies  a  right  temper  and  be- 
haviour on  the  part  of  the  person  saved.  It  implies 
that  he  has  enlightened  and  correct  views  of  God,  of 
Christ,  of  himself;  and  that  he  feels  as  one  in  his  con- 
dition ought.  It  brings  him  upon  his  knees,  as  a  suppli- 
ant before  God.  It  causes  him  to  humble  himself,  to 
acknowledge  his  guilt  and  ill  desert,  and  to  ask  for  par- 
don as  a  blessing  of  which  he  is  utterly  unworthy.  It 
requires  him  publickly  to  honour  the  atonement,  and  so 
to  do  what  he  can  to  promote  its  salutary  influence  on 
the  universe.  It  is  such  an  act  of  entire  submission, 
such  a  surrendry  of  himself  and  of  all  his  interests  into 
the  hands  of  God,  as  at  once  removes  all  distance  be- 
tween him  and  his  Maker,  and  lays  a  foundation  for  that 
cordial,  affectionate  intercourse  in  future  between  him, 
and  God,  which  it  is  the  very  object  of  redemption  to 
produce. 


APPENDIX,  A. 


Concise  history  of  the  doctrine  of  Atonement. 

THE  fathers  did  not  sufficiently  discriminate  between  the  means 
of  sanctification  and  the  grounds  of  justification.  They  considered 
Jesus  Christ  as  their  only  deliverer  both  from  sin  itself  and  from  its 
punishment.  To  obtain  salvation,  they  supposed,  much  was  requir- 
ed of  them.  Without  defining  precisely  what  they  must  themselves 
do,  and  what  Christ  had  done,  or  would  do  for  them;  they  seem  to 
have  regarded  salvation  as  a  whole,  and  as  such  they  frequently  as- 
cribed it  to  different  causes.  The  blood  of  Christ,  the  ransom  he 
paid,  and  their  faith  in  him  and  obedience  to  him,  as  well  as  bap- 
tism, alms,  fasting,  penance,  prayer,  and  martyrdom, — all  were  spok- 
en of  in  much  the  same  terms,  and  not  unfrequently  represented  as, 
severally,  the  ground  of  their  entire  salvation. 

*  It  was,  however,  the  current  opinion,  from  the  end  of  the  second 
century  down  to  the  reformation,  that  on  a  person's  embracing  and 
professing  the  Christian  religion  by  baptism,  all  his  past  sins  were 
cancelled ;  and  that,  for  the  sins  he  might  afterwards  commit,  he 
must  suffer  penance,  give  alms,  fast  and  pray,  unless  he  could  atone 
for  them  all  by  martyrdom. 

Whether  God  could  have  saved  us  in  any  other  way  than  that  de- 
scribed in  the  gospel,  was  a  question  on  which  the  fathers  were  by 
no  means  agreed.  Basil,  Ambrose,  and  others,  (on  the  authority  of 
Ps.  xlix.  8.)  denied,  while  Athanasius,  both  the  Gregories,  Theodoret, 
Augustine,  &c.  affirmed  it. 

The  death  of  Christ,  they  often  considered  in  the  light  of  a  sacri- 
fice for  sin  ;  and  often  too,  in  that  of  a  ransom  paid  for  the  redemp- 
tion of  captives.  They  considered  all  men  as  having  resigned  them- 
selves up  willing  slaves  of  the  god  of  this  world  ;  who  therefore  had 
over  them  the  rights  of  a  conqueror  over  captives.  To  rescue  them 
from  this  captivity,  Christ  paid  his  own  life  a  ransom.  Thus  Justin, 
Irenaeus,  Clemens  Alex.  Terlullian,  Origin,  Basil,  &,c.  who  maintained 
that  the  ransom  was  paid  to  the  devil.  Indeed  this  was  the  general 
opinion  in  the  earlier  ages.  But  Gregory  Naz.  Augustine,  Athanasius, 
and  Ambrose,  held  that  the  ransom  was  paid  to  God  ; — a  sentiment 
which  was  generally  held  among  the  schoolmen. 


42 

From  the  fourth  century  onward,  both  natures  of  the  Saviour 
were  supposed  to  be  concerned  in  the  atonement. 
^  The  schoolmen  were  the  first  to  give  system  to  many  doctrines  of 
the  "bible.  Anselm,  in  the  llth  century,  is  regarded  as  laying  the 
foundation  of  that  scheme  of  the  atonement  which  was  adopted  by 
the  reformers.  Some  traces  of  similar  opinions  are  to  be  found  at 
an  earlier  period  ;  but  his  book,  entitled,  Gur  Deus  Homo?  first  gave 
them  form  and  currency.  He  maintained,  that  to  sin  is  to  rob  God 
of  the  honour  due  to  him ;  and  that  every  sinner  thus  becomes  a 
debtor  to  God  ;  and  an  insolvent  debtor,  because,  if  he  reforms,  he 
can  never  perform  in  any  given  period  more  than  the  service  due 
for  that  period.  Hence  a  redeemer  was  necessary;  who  must  be 
God  as  well  as  man,  that  he  might  pay  more  honour  to  God  than 
could  be  demanded  of  him. — Jesus  Christ  was  such  a  saviour.  Tak- 
ing our  debt  on  himself,  he  cancelled  it,  by  suffering  the  penalty  of 
the  law. — This  theory  soon  became  popular.  Thomas  Aquinas 
adopted  it,  and  added,  that  the  satisfaction  made  by  Christ  was  super- 
abundant, or  more  than  was  absolutely  necessary  ;  because,  he  be- 
ing God,  his  sacrifice  had  infinite  value,  while  men  being  finite  their 
debt  was  so.  The  Dominicans  and  afterwards  the  Jesuits,  embrac- 
ed and  defended  this  scheme.  But  Duns  Scotus,  Occam,  the  Nomin- 
alists and  Franciscans,  denied  that  Christ  actually  suffered  the  pen- 
alty of  the  law  ;  and  maintained  that  he  endured  only  what  God  gra- 
ciously accepted  as  equivalent  to  it. 

x  Luther  and  the  other  reformers  adopted  this  theory  of  Anselm, 
which  they  extended  so  as  to  make  the  atoning  death  of  Christ  a  sat- 
isfaction to  God  for  all  sins,  and  not  merely  for  sins  committed  be- 
fore baptism.  This  modification  was  of  vast  moment,  as  it  swept 
away  all  the  schemes  of  personal  merit  which  had  been  accumulat- 
ing on  the  church  for  ages,  and  sent  men  to  Jesus  Christ  alone  for 
salvation. 

Still  the  scheme  had  its  difficulties.  It  exhibited  God  the  Father, 
as  unforgiving;  it  supposed  a  real  transfer  of  guilt  and  merit;  and 
it  seemed  to  exonerate  believers  from  all  obligation  to  obey  the  law 
of  God.  Among  the  many  who  endeavoured  to  defend  or  to  modify 
it,  Grotius  stands  conspicuous.  He  taught  that  Christ  made  satisfac^ 
tion,  not  to  God,  but  to  the  law  ;  the  honour  of  which  must  be  sup- 
ported for  the  sake  of  the  public  good.  Our  guilt  also,  he  conceiv- 
ed not  to  be  transferred  to  Christ ;  but  God,  as  a  sovereign  and  law- 


43 

giver,  relaxed  the  law,  by  allowing  its  penalty  to  be  transferred  to 
Christ.  Thus  the  innocent  suffered  for  the  guilty  ;  which,  though 
contrary  to  distributive  justice,  was  not  wrong,  since  Christ  consent- 
ed to  it,  and  the  public  good  required  it.  This  scheme  with  some 
modification,  has  extended  over  most  protestant  nations,  and  has 
nearly  supplanted  the  theory  of  Anselm. 

In  this  historical  sketch,  no  notice  is  taken  of  the  schemes  which 
sink  the  atonement  into  a  mere  device  for  persuading  and  enabling 
men  to  repent,  under  the  expectation  that  God  will  then  forgive 
them.  Some  account  of  these  schemes  may  be  seen  in  Brettschnei- 
ders*  Entwickelung,  §  107.  S.  612.  and  Handbuch  d.  Dogmatik.  B. 
II.  S.  323.  also  in  Magee,  on  Atonement  and  Sacrifice. 

I  will  here  close  this  article  with  notices  of  the  histories  of  this 
doctrine,  which  I  have  consulted,  and  from  which  the  reader  may- 
obtain  more  full  satisfaction. 

1.  Grotius,  in  his  Defensio  Fidei  &c.  in  Op.  torn.  III.  gives   us  ten 
folio  pages  of  mere  quotations  from  the  Lat.  and  Gr.  fathers  and  the 
schoolmen. 

2.  J.  F.  Cotta,  Historia  Doctrinae  de  Redemp.  Eccles.  in  the  4th 
vol.  of  J.  Gerhardi  Loci  Theol.  p.  105—132.  4to.     This  history  ex- 
tends from  the  birth  of  Christ  to  the  middle  of  the  last  century ;    but  is 
rather  superficial. 

3.  Joseph  Priestly,  D.  D.  History  of  the  Corruptions  of  Christiani- 
ty, vol.  1.  pp.  88—161.  ed.  Boston  1797.     "  This  work  from  the  name 
of  the  author^  has  obtained  more  notice  than,  from  its  superficial  contents 
and  the  every  where  visible   ignorance   of  the  sources  of  history,  it  de- 
serves"  Mwischer,  Dogmengesch,  Einleitung,  §  21. 

4.  W.  C.  L.  Ziegler^  Historia  Dogmatis  de  Redemptione,  Getting. 
1791,  also  in  Commentt.  Theol.  vol.  V.  pp.  227 — 299.  8vo. — good. 

5.  W.  Munscher,  Handbuch   der  Christ.  Dogtnengeschichte,  B.  II. 
S.  204—262,  and   B.  IV.  S.   260—319,  8vo.  Marpurg,  1809-       This 
brings  the  history  down  to  A.  D.  600,  in  a  very  satisfactory  manner. 

APPENDIX  B. 

Much  of  the  obscurity  and  difficulty  attending  the  doctrine  of  the 
atonement,  arise,  I  conceive,  from  confounding  the  different  mean- 
ings of  the  word  justice.  It  will  not  then  be  unsuitable  to  give  a 
distinct  account  of  the  authorized  senses  of  this  word,  so  far  as  they 
relate  to  the  subject  before  us. 

holiness  of  God  is  his  absolute  moral  perfection,  or  the  sum 


44 

of  his  moral  attributes  viewed  merely  as  attributes.  His  righteous- 
ness is  nothing  more  than  the  display  of  his  holiness  or  moral  perfec- 
tion, in  his  conduct  towards  his  creatures,  f  See  BrettschneideSs 
Handbuch  der  Dogm.  I.  S.  347,  and  Ddderlein,  Theol.  Christ.  §  93. 
\  obs.  5.  vol.  1.  p.  333. — The  word  justice  has  several  meanings.  Some- 
times it  is  synonymous  with  righteousness.  In  this  acceptation  it  is 
called  general  justice  ;  to  distinguish  it  from  the  other  acceptations, 
in  which  it  is  called  particular  or  simple  justice.  General  justice  has 
respect  to  all  the  laws  which  ought  to  govern  our  conduct,  and  in- 
cludes the  whole  list  of  moral  virtues.  Particular  justice  has  re- 
spect only  to  the  claims  of  others  upon  us,  and  consists  in  giving  to 
every  one  his  due. — The  distinction  has  been  explained  by  a  recur- 
rence to  the  doctrine  of  perfect  and  imperfect  rights/  A  perfect 
right  is  that  which  persons  have  to  things  property  their  own  ;  and 
to  give  them  possession  of  which  is  conferring  on  them  no  favour, 
but  merely  discharging  a  debt.  It  is  a  right  which  a  man  may  chal- 
lenge, and  which  the  law  does,  or  should,  always  help  him  to  recov- 
er. Such  are  the  rights  of  a  man  to  his  property,  to  protection 
from  oppression  and  injury,  to  acquittal  when  proved  innocent,  to 
the  fulfilment  of  all  contracts  and  promises  made  to  him.  An  im- 
perfect right  is  that  which  a  beggar  has  to  charity,  and  which  every 
man  has  to  kind  offices  according  to  his  necessities ;  a  right  howev- 
er, which  he  can  never  challenge  or  enforce,  and  the  recognition  of 
which  brings  him  under  an  obligation  of  gratitude  to  a  benefactor. 
Now  general  justice  regards  all  the  rights  of  others,  whether  perfect 
or  imperfect.  It  consists  in  allowing  due  influence  to  all  the  consid- 
erations which  ought  to  govern  our  conduct.  It  involves  the  exer- 
cise of  various  virtues  at  the  same  time,  or  in  the  same  act ;  and  is 
on  that  account,  sometimes  called  mixed  justice.  Particular  or  sim- 
ple justice  consists  in  violating  no  man's  perfect  rights,  or  in  satis- 
fying all  his  just  claims  upon  us  ;  "  Justitia  in  suo  cuique  tribuendo 
cernitur."  Simple  justice  is  commonly  divided  into  distributive  and 
commutative  justice.  The  former  is  concerned  in  the  distribution 
of  honours  and  privileges  or  burdens  and  services,  among  the  mem^ 
bers  of  a  society.  It  is  peculiarly  the  virtue  of  a  governour  or  pub- 
lic officer.  It  requires  him  to  observe  equality  in  the  distribution  of 
rewards  and  punishments,  privileges  and  burdens,  paying  regard  only 
to  the  condition  and  the  merits  of  each  individual.  The  latter,  com- 
mutative justice,  respects  merely  compacts  and  bargains  about  prop- 
erty and  services.  It  requires  equality  in  the  things  commuted,  or 


45 

that  an  exact  equivalent  be  given  for  what  is  received,  without  any 
regard  to  persons  or  characters. — To  these  three  kinds  of  justice, 
some  add  what  is  called  regal  or  rectoral  justice,  which  requires  the 
governing  power  or  sovereign  of  a  realm  to  make  such  enactments 
and  so  to  relax,  modify  or  suspend  the  execution  of  the  law,  as  to 
secure  the  highest  good  of  the  community,  in  cases  where  the  ordi- 
nary course  of  distributive  justice  would  be  injurious  and  therefore 
wrong.  But  this  need  not  be  made  a  distinct  species  of  justice,  since 
it  is  in  its  nature  nothing  different  from  general  justice.  I  mention 
it  here  only  because  it  occurs  in  some  treatises  on  the  atonement. — 
The  threefold  division  of  justice  stated  above,  whether  it  be  the 
best  that  can  be  devised  or  not,  has  been  generally  received  ever 
since  the  days  of  Aristotle,  and  is  that  to  which  moralists  and  others 
most  commonly  refer.  See  Dwighfs  Theol.  Serm.  x.  vol.  I.  pp.  160 
—163,  and  Grove's  Moral  Phil.  vol.  II.  pp.  238—244,  254—256,  and 
the  writers  there  referred  to. 

In  treating  of  the  justice  of  God,  divines  are  accustomed  to  dis- 
criminate only  two  forms  of  it,  legislative  and  executive  ;  the  former 
concerned  in  the  enactment  of  laws,  and  the  latter  in  the  execution 
of  them. — Commutative  justice  can  hardly  be  predicated  of  God,  as 
he  is  a  being  who  gives  to  all  but  receives  from  none.  Distributive 
justice,  it  would  seem,  may  be  predicated  of  him,  and  that  too  of 
the  highest  kind  ;  because  all  his  laws  are  equal,  and  their  execu- 
tion impartial.  And  yet  we  cannot  suppose  a  being  of  such  consum- 
mate perfection  as  he  is,  ever  to  perform  any  act  without  a  due  re- 
gard to  all  the  rights  of  his  creatures,  and  allowing  due  influence  to 
all  the  considerations  which  ought  to  govern  his  conduct.  But  this 
would  bring  every  act  of  justice  performed  by  him  completely  un- 
der the  definition  of  general  justice.  Shall  we  then  say  that  distrib- 
utive justice  is  not  an  attribute  of  God  ?  By  no  means.  But  we 
must  say,  that  distributive  justice  in  him,  is  not  that  limited,  one- 
eyed  virtue  which  it  often  is  in  men,  and  which  the  common  defi- 
nition makes  it ;  that  is,  it  does  not  regard  merely  the  claims  of  his 
creature,  upon  him.  It  is  in  the  nature  of  it  general  justice  presid- 
ing in  the  enactment  and  execution  of  permanent  laws.  In  his  per- 
manent enactments,  and  in  the  ordinary  execution  of  law,  he  does 
indeed  give  to  every  one  his  due,  though  from  other  considerations 
superadded  to  that  of  their  deserts  or  claims  ;  but  in  mercifully  sus- 
pending the  arm  of  punitive  justice,  in  extraordinary  enactments  for 
7 


46 

the  sake  of  greater  good  than  could  be  obtained  by  the  trtere  exe- 
cution of  permanent  laws,  —  in  a  word,  in  the  formation  and  execu- 
tion of  the  whole  system  of  grace,  —  the  justice  which  is  diplayed  is 
not  distributive  justice,  even  that  elevated  kind  of  it  which  we  as- 
cribe to  God  ;  it  is  unequivocally  general  justice. 

vFor  these  reasons,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say,  that  dwaioGwr}  in 
Rom.  iii.  24,  is  general,  not  distributive,  justice.  And  to  be  consis- 
tent, every  one  must  admit  it,  who  admits  that  the  justice  of  God  irt 
any  sense  of  the  word,  is  here  intended  ;  and  at  the  same  time  ad- 
inits  that  the  penalty  of  the  law  was  not  actually  and  literally  exe- 
cuted on  Jesus  Christ  substituted  for  us  and  charged  with  all  our 
guilt.  —  See  the  younger  Pres.  Edwards,  Three  Serm.  in  Selections 
on  the  atonement,  pp.  351  —  358.  Pres.  Maxcy,  Discourses,  Ibid.  pp. 
205—208.  Burge,  on  Atonement,  pp.  161  —  165.  Parkhurst,  Gr<- 
Lex.  dwaioGvvri)  and  Wares,  Remarks  on  Version  of  N.  T.  p.  160. 


APPENDIX,  C.  p.  19. 

For  arguments  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  legal  satisfaction  by  vi- 
carious punishment,  see  Grotius,  Defensio  F.  C.  de  Satisfactione,  cap. 
IV.  Op.  torn.  III.  pp  311—315.  F.  Turrettin,de  Satisfactione  Christi, 
Disp.  II.  §  35—50.  pp.  50—59,  and  Disp.  X.  A.  Fuller**  Dialogues, 
Pt.  III.  Convers.  I,  II,  and,  The  Doctrine  of  the  Aton,  explained  and 
defended,  by  o  Christian  of  the  ancient  School,  in  Panoplist,  Vol.  II. 
pp.  453,  513,  5GO,  and  Vol.  III.  pp.  114,  155.  Arguments  against  legal 
satisfaction  by  vicarious  punishment,  may  be  seen  in  /.  Balgmfs  Es- 
say on  Redemption,  pp.  12—23,  ed.  1785.  E.  D.  Griffin,  on  the 
Extent  of  the  Aton.  Pt.  I.  ch.  7.  pp.  113—171.  C.  Burge,  Essay  on 
Aton.  ch.  6  and  7,  particularly  ch.  7,  pp.  195  —  216. 

This  subject  has,  I  conceive,  been  embarrassed  chiefly,  by  the 
general  prevalence  of  the  old  scholastic  notions  respecting  the  trans- 
ferable character  of  guilt  and  punishment,  and  by  reasoning  from 
the  analogy  of  human  governments  without  discriminating  between 
acts  of  sovereignty  and  the  mere  execution  of  law.  —  From  the  days 
of  Anselm  and  Aquinas,  or  from  the  eleventh  century  to  the  eigh- 
teenth, the  great  body  of  Western  Christians  believed  that  the  Me- 
diator so  took  the  place  of  transgressors,  or  at  least  of  penitent  be- 
lieving ones,  that  their  guilt  was  either  actually  transferred  or  le- 
gally imputed  to  him;  and  that  he  of  course  became  legally  obnox- 
ious to  punishment,  and  really  suffered  the  curse  of  the  law  or 
what  was  equivalent  to  it.  The  reformers  generally,  and  most  qf 


47 

their  successors  till  some  time  in  the  last  century,  held  these  sentir 
vments.  After  the  impossibility  of  transferring  moral  character  or 
guilt  and  obedience,  began  to  be  seen  ;  the  legal  imputation  of  it,  or 
the  justice  of  treating  persons  as  if  such  a  transfer  had  really  taken 
place,  was  tenaciously  held  by  some  ;  while  others  discriminated  be- 
tween guilt  and  punishment,  and  held  to  the  transfer  of  the  latter 
only.  All  these,  more  or  less  overlooked  the  nature  of  the  penalty 
of  the  divine  law  ;  and  confounded  the  ideas  of  forfeiture  and  of  sim- 
ple punishment.  They  considered  the  transgressor  as  bound  to  pay 
something;  and  supposed  that  the  payment  of  the  forfeiture,  wheth-  ' 
er  by  himself  or  by  another,  satisfied  the  demands  of  the  law.  And 
when  reasoning  on  the  subject,  they  drew  analogies  from  the  pro- 
ceedings in  human  governments,  without  discriminating  between  acts 
of  sovereignty  and  the  mere  execution  of  law;  or  if  they  saw  and 
admitted  the  distinction,  as  many  of  them  did,  yet  they  did  not  con- 
form their  language  to  it,  but  continued  to  use  the  terms  law,  satis- 
^faction,  legal  justice,  &c.  in  the  customary  vague  manner.  From  this 
source,  so  much  obscurity  and  misunderstanding  have  arisen,  that  it 
may  not  be  improper  just  to  state  in  few  words  the  distinction,  which 
should  never  have  been  neglected.  The  supreme  power  in  a  na- 
tion, not  only  enacts  and  repeals  the  laws  of  the  country,  but  it  some- 
times grants  dispensations,  or  suspends  and  modifies  the  operation  of 
the  existing  laws  ;  by  forbidding  prosecutions,  remitting  penalties  and 
granting  pardons,  in  criminal  cases ;  and  by  allowing  of  chancery 
proceedings  in  some  civil  causes.  From  the  imperfection  of  all  hu- 
man legislation,  occasions  will  arise  when  the  public  good  will  be 
promoted,  and  more  perfect  justice  be  done  to  individuals,  by  sus- 
pending the  regular  course  of  legal  justice;  and  the  more  imperfect 
the  laws,  the  more  frequent  these  occasions.  But  it  is  only  the  sove- 
reign of  the  nation,  or  some  one  possessing  a  portion  of  his  power, 
that  can  meet  the  exigences  of  these  cases ;  the  judges  and  all  the 
ordinary  ministers  of  justice  are  bound  to  fellow  strictly  the  course 
the  law  prescribes.  They  are  not  to  be  guided  by  their  own  wis- 
dom and  judgment,  or  by  their  own  ideas  of  what  is  reasonable  and 
proper,  except  where  the  laws  expressly  give  them  discretionary 
power.  The  law  is  their  rule,  so  far  as  it  extends ;  and  within  those 
limits,  legal  justice  is  the  only  justice  they  are  to  know.  Now  it  is 
with  reference  to  the  exercise  of  legal  justice  in  a  criminal  trial, 
that  we  speak  of  a  legal  justification,  or  a  justification  on  the  ground 
of  law  and  justice.  In  this,  which  is  doubtless  the  proper  sense  of 


Y  *+ 

.  fj  >*  ^* 

48 


the  words,  we  affirm  that  the  justification  of  believers  in  Jesus  Christ, 
does  not  proceed  on  the  ground  of  law  and  justice  ;  that  the  divine 
law  did  not  allow  of  a  transfer  of  our  punishment  to  him,  nor  per- 
mit his  sufferings  to  be  set  to  our  account ;  and  that  nothing1  the  Me- 
diator could  possibly  do  or  suffer,  would  satisfy  the  demands  of  the 
law  upon  us.  And  this  we  say  is  evident  from  the  nature  of  law,  in 
all  governments,  human  and  divine.  Hence  we  pronounce  the  justi- 
fication of  believers,  to  be  an  act  of  the  sovereign  mercy  of  God,  a 
departure  from  the  regular  course  of  justice,  and  such  a  departure 
as  leaves  the  claims  of  the  law  forever  unsatisfied.  We  mean  that 
it  is  analogous  to  those  sovereign  acts  of  the  supreme  power  in  a  na- 
tion, by  which  the  regular  course  of  legal  justice  is  arrested ;  and 
that  it  is  such  an  act  as  the  ministers  of  legal  justice  could  not  per- 
form.— Overlooking  this  distinction,  or  confounding  all  the  acts  of 
human  rulers,  many  writers  on  the  atonement,  finding  that  in  human 
governments  much  use  is  made  of  discretionary  power  ;  and  that  in 
the  early  ages  especially,  magistrates  followed  very  much  their  own 
discretion  or  rather  caprice,  in  the  administration  of  justice  ;  have 
been  led  to  consider  the  justification  of  believers  in  Christ  as  a  ju- 
dicial act  or  the  act  of  a  judge  seated  on  the  bench  of  justice.  The 
judge,  say  they,  saw  in  the  vicarious  sufferings  of  the  Mediator,  a  full 
satisfaction  of  all  the  demands  of  the  divine  law ;  and  therefore  he 
pronounced  us  legally  acquitted.  These  writers  could  find,  espe- 
cially in  ancient  history,  some  instances  of  human  rulers  allowing  and 
even  requiring  the  innocent  to  suffer  for  the  guilty  :  and  these  were 
deemed  examples  in  point.  They  found  all  antiquity  admiring  the 
ingenuity  and  extolling  the  virtue  of  some  such  rulers:  and  this  was 
evidence  that  the  common  sense  of  mankind  approved  such  justice. 
They  could  see  and  feel  that  the  occasional  exercise  of  sovereign 
or  discretionary  power,  suspending  or  modifying  the  operation  of 
human  laws,  is  really  necessary  ;  and  this  satisfied  their  consciences, 
their  moral  sense,  that  strict  justice  might  require  or  at  least  admit 
a  similar  power  to  interpose  and  modify  the  operations  of  the  divine 
Law  :  for  in  their  zeal  for  a  favourite  opinion,  they  unhappily  forgot 
that  the  law  of  God  as  administered  by  him,  can  never  fail  to  do  per- 
fect justice,  and  that  any  suspension  of  its  operation  would  of 
coufse  be  a  suspension  of  justice. 


